I don't see Bonds going in for a few years. He'll do better than McGwire on the votes, and I do think he'll eventually go in, but probably not before year 2020. Unless the hof interfers of course. But realistically with the glut coming along, I don't see them worrying about it, because every year someone will get in. (even if the hof has to fudge the vote count to make it happen)

Talk about the wish being the father of the thought. The evidence to date that "A HOF without Bonds, Clemens, et al., isn't much of a HOF" exists solely in the minds of their supporters. It's akin to a Texan's imagining that the rest of the country couldn't possibly refuse the political appeal of Rick Perry.

You thinking it doesn't matter is akin to believing the country will rally around the homespun honesty of Newt Gingrich.

In case the thought might not have occurred to you, it didn't take Newt Gingrich to sink Rick Perry's ship. Perry took his best Colt .45 and drilled himself right in the noggin.

A whole generation of baseball fans is going to see their greatest players blackballed. A hall without Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, and Rose, just becomes a hall full of old men they can't remember or can barely recall. If the BBWAA blackballs guys like Piazza too, they are out of control, and trying to wipe out a generation of baseball memories.

Of course nobody who visits Cooperstown ever ventures beyond the plaque room, and no other players from Bonds's and Clemens's generation will ever, ever be elected to the Hall of Fame in the next 15 years. It's amazing how many paranoid conclusions you can draw when you get to select your own premise.

I agree with 14, though, that if for some reason those guys do stay off, it's not going to destroy the freaking Hall of Fame, and it's not going to make the Hall remove the BBWAA from this entirely. Come on now. The Veterans' Committee already exists for players who slipped through the cracks for one reason or another.

So there won't be any reason to go to Cooperstown for the next few decades, but after that everything will be fine again?

Observers trying to explain strange HOF votes sometimes mention that writers are selected for writing ability, not analytic ability. I'm not so sure.

Based on the tone of his sanctimonious delirium, I can only assume he was typing one-handed. In which case, it's not that bad.

Was this ever NOT the case? It has always seemed that way to me dating back to when I was a kid in the 70s. Obviously it has a lot more to offer than just the plaques (I'm with you and others in noting that it's the least interesting part of the museum) but I think that has always been the draw for most people.

I think it has sort of taken over. When I was a kid, I read a lot about the players from a generation before me--Richie Ashburn, Herb Score, Gil Hodges, Del Ennis, whatever. Today, I think the "story" of Jim Rice EQUALS his Hall of Fame case. If you read about Richie Ashburn in the 1970s, you would have read about where he grew up, where he went to high school, his childhood heroes, how he learned to play center field, whatever. When Ron Santo died, his obit WAS his Hall of Fame case. If you read a story about Tim Raines anywhere in the next six months, it will be about his Hall of Fame case. This is new, in my view.

I think if you are a young kid who loves baseball today, your prism into the players of the past will be a series of Hall of Fame cases and lists.

Of course nobody who visits Cooperstown ever ventures beyond the plaque room, and no other players from Bonds's and Clemens's generation will ever, ever be elected to the Hall of Fame in the next 15 years. It's amazing how many paranoid conclusions you can draw when you get to select your own premise.

Do you really think that the Hall won't be damaged by 10-20 years where the primary focus is on who's being kept out, instead of who's just gone in?

Let's not forget that there were people here saying exactly the same thing about Mark McGwire five years ago. The idea that a "one year penalty" is going to be the wrist-slap fate of Bonds and Clemens works only if you think that 69% of the 80% of the voters who didn't vote for McGwire this year were voting against him only on the basis of some "steroid discounting", and not because they simply don't want juicers in the Hall of Fame. Because that 69% of 80% is what it's going to take to get enough votes for Bonds or Clemens to get them over the 75% mark.

Your very sure of your numbers here Andy. There is quite likely a contingent of McGwire "No" voters who don't give a rip about steroids, but just don't think a guy with a .263 batting average and only 1600 hits is a HOFer. When he finally got elected, 17% of voters rejected Harmon Killebrew, and he brought more to the table than Mac (more hits, runs, RBI, and an MVP).

Put another way. If there were no roids taint to McGwire, how many votes do you think he'd get? I'd say about 80-85%. So add that (say 15%) to his current 20%, and now you need 40 of the remaining 65%.

Curt Schilling is suspected of doing PEDs?


By the writers' standards, he should be.

I think you're forgetting the did-he-give-me-good-quotes-thereby-proving-he-is-a-paragon-of-humanity addendum to the official BBWA player-assessment guide. Abject failure to provide good quotes can sometimes be overridden by the suck-it-nerds clause (see, e.g., Jim Rice) but luckily for Schilling that is a one-way ratchet.

"Museum attendance has slid from 352,000 in 2007 to 301,755 in 2008, 289,000 in 2009, 281,000 in 2010, and a projected figure of between 265,000 and 270,000 for 2011. Annual attendance topped 400,000 in peak years of the late 1980s and early 1990s."

Of course nobody who visits Cooperstown ever ventures beyond the plaque room, and no other players from Bonds's and Clemens's generation will ever, ever be elected to the Hall of Fame in the next 15 years. It's amazing how many paranoid conclusions you can draw when you get to select your own premise.

Looks like fewer people venture to the plaque room every year. I'm sure that has nothing to do with my paranoid premise.

I really think folks are wrong about any HOF backlash. If you gave every American a HOF vote, and held the 2012 election, I don't think that Bonds or Clemens would do substantially better than they will among the writers. They might easily do worse.

And people won't miss a handful of players. The backlog itself will see to that. Look at the list in #25 and add in the Veterans selections. There are three inductees in 2014 (at least) even without the steroid users. How often are there three BBWAA inductees into the Hall of Fame? Twice in the last 30 years by my count.

There will be a huge pile of new inductees. The induction ceremonies will be stuffed to the gills. Nobody will notice the absence of Bonds or Clemens, at least not for 5-10 years.

Today, I think the "story" of Jim Rice EQUALS his Hall of Fame case.... If you read a story about Tim Raines anywhere in the next six months, it will be about his Hall of Fame case. This is new, in my view.

This phenomenon is frustrating to me (and the other baseball fans out there who presumably aren't vexed much either way by induction yes's or no's). It obviously benefits the writers to make sure the in/out of the HOF is considered a very important topic, but I'm not so sure what everyone else gets out of it.

Do you really think that the Hall won't be damaged by 10-20 years where the primary focus is on who's being kept out, instead of who's just gone in?

honestly, No. As long as Bonds and Clemens stay on the ballot, the hall probably benefits from the articles more. I seriously doubt that not putting someone in, is going to affect whether someone goes to the hof or not. (outside of those fans who would have showed up for a particular players induction) annual attendence outside of induction week probably won't fluctuate at all because Bonds and Clemens are in or not in.

I really think folks are wrong about any HOF backlash. If you gave every American a HOF vote, and held the 2012 election, I don't think that Bonds or Clemens would do substantially better than they will among the writers. They might easily do worse.

I disagree here, I think the writers stance on McGwire is a lot more restrictive than the average fan in America. I'm fairly positive if they had to vote for McGwire he would break 40-50% easily.

Agree with the rest of the comment, there is no real reason other than an overcrowded ballot for the hof to get involved in ensuring Clemens and Bonds go in.

Your very sure of your numbers here Andy. There is quite likely a contingent of McGwire "No" voters who don't give a rip about steroids, but just don't think a guy with a .263 batting average and only 1600 hits is a HOFer. When he finally got elected, 17% of voters rejected Harmon Killebrew, and he brought more to the table than Mac (more hits, runs, RBI, and an MVP).

We hope that modern day voters have learned just enough to understand that while Killebrew created almost 10% more career value than Big Mac, he had to play in 30% more games to do it. And while the Killer is one of the best 50 hitters of all time (sitting just outside the top 40), McGwire sits right next to the top 10.

It's hard to imagine anyone can think a guy who is 71st in fWAR all time, despite numerous injuries that shortened his career, and is the 11th best hitter of all time by OPS+ and wRC+, and shattered both the rookie HR and season HR records by huge margins, while being an important player on numerous good teams and one all time great team, isn't HOF worthy on the merits of his career performance.

Boswell wrote a column today that said that the writers are eventually going to settle on a rule of thumb that "keep[s] out the great players who got caught cheating, those whose behavior is public knowledge**, but give[s] everybody else the benefit of the doubt, even though that inevitably means electing some PED users." I've been saying that for years, and it's the only rule of thumb that punishes the truly guilty while protecting the presumption of innocence for those with no concrete evidence against them.

Of course even such a standard still leaves plenty of room for interpretation, as Boswell himself shows by listing Sosa in his group of "knowns", when the only evidence against him has been a leak from anonymous lawyers who allegedly had access to the 2003 testing results---sources whose names have yet to be revealed. But even given Boswell's lapse from his own rule, it's still better than jumping on every big muscle and statistical blip and blackballing players on mere suspicion.

Then you aren't keeping all 'roiders out (**), and if you aren't keeping all 'roiders out, there's no sense to a rule that keeps any of them automatically out.

Which is why, in the real world, bright liners take prophylactic measures to keep the Hall "clean," and those measures include bright lining out mere suspects. It's inherent in the bright line mandate.

(**) Roid IDs are either accidents, or the product of an entirely non-representative sample -- the Mitchell Report. There hasn't been anything remotely approaching a calm, systematic process to identify 'roiders. Which means that, under the Boswell rule, 'roiders will inevitably be admitted to Cooperstown. The Hall he and you are bright lining people out of cannot be the "clean" institution you're striving for. Which is yet another internal contradiction of bright lining. It simply makes no sense.

It's hard to imagine anyone can think a guy who is 71st in fWAR all time, despite numerous injuries that shortened his career, and is the 11th best hitter of all time by OPS+ and wRC+, and shattered both the rookie HR and season HR records by huge margins, while being an important player on numerous good teams and one all time great team, isn't HOF worthy on the merits of his career performance.

On next year's HOF ballot, McGwire will stand 12th in WAR, while Sosa will be 13th. I can see someone not voting for either of them on their merits. (I am not saying this is the end of the story, but it is silly to think that McGwire is a slam dunk.)

why does it make no sense? innocent till enough evidence exists to reasonably claim you are guilty is about the most fair way to go about it, if you want to try and keep roiders out of the hof. It's unfair to make assumptions without some evidence beyond heresay, and yes you are right, his way will ensure that a roider eventually does go in, but to some that is more fair than punishing the innocent(kinda similar to the "I would rather have 100 guilty men go free, than have one innocent man in jail" philosophy)

I really think folks are wrong about any HOF backlash. If you gave every American a HOF vote, and held the 2012 election, I don't think that Bonds or Clemens would do substantially better than they will among the writers. They might easily do worse.

I'm always amazed when I talk to regular baseball fans, that I've rarely ever encountered anyone who cares at all about steroids beyond it being a point of amusement. The Hysteroid crowd is a tiny minority in the real world, and it only seems large at all because of the extreme vocalness of it's members, and the number of sports writers who belong to it.

And people won't miss a handful of players. The backlog itself will see to that. Look at the list in #25 and add in the Veterans selections. There are three inductees in 2014 (at least) even without the steroid users. How often are there three BBWAA inductees into the Hall of Fame? Twice in the last 30 years by my count.

There will be a huge pile of new inductees. The induction ceremonies will be stuffed to the gills. Nobody will notice the absence of Bonds or Clemens, at least not for 5-10 years.

Fewer people go to the HOF every year, despite baseball attendance being at all time highs. This policy is just going to hasten it's irrelevance. Far more fans will want to go see McGwire or Sosa enter the hall than McGriff or Concepcion or Mussina. The BBWAA will substitute less popular players, and that will translate into less popularity.

On next year's HOF ballot, McGwire will stand 12th in WAR, while Sosa will be 13th. I can see someone not voting for either of them on their merits. (I am not saying this is the end of the story, but it is silly to think that McGwire is a slam dunk.)

The only strike against McGwire (other than admitting to using the same PEDs everyone else used) is career value. But his career value is adequate for the hall, and his peak value is easily among the greatest ever. Combine that with his place in history he should be a slam dunk, if such a thing ever existed on a BBWAA ballot.

BTW: if a writer was the type to be skeptical about defensive metrics and adjustments, he might be really impressed that Big Mac is 24th all time in career batting value, despite having played significantly fewer games than anyone else in the top 30. He had tremendous career value, and if he stuck it out a couple more years his WAR would be too high to even deny him on that level.

Of course nobody who visits Cooperstown ever ventures beyond the plaque room, and no other players from Bonds's and Clemens's generation will ever, ever be elected to the Hall of Fame in the next 15 years. It's amazing how many paranoid conclusions you can draw when you get to select your own premise.

Do you really think that the Hall won't be damaged by 10-20 years where the primary focus is on who's being kept out, instead of who's just gone in?

To put it bluntly, I suspect that'd be your obsession more than that of the average baseball fan. Not everyone shares your idea of what and whom the Hall of Fame is obligated to honor.

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

You're very sure of your numbers here Andy. There is quite likely a contingent of McGwire "No" voters who don't give a rip about steroids, but just don't think a guy with a .263 batting average and only 1600 hits is a HOFer. When he finally got elected, 17% of voters rejected Harmon Killebrew, and he brought more to the table than Mac (more hits, runs, RBI, and an MVP).

You make an arguable generic point, but Killebrew came up for a vote in an era when even obvious slam dunks were being denied first ballot honors, which is far less the case today. And while Killebrew had a great career, he never had but a fraction of the national publicity that McGwire had when he broke Roger Maris's record.

Put another way. If there were no roids taint to McGwire, how many votes do you think he'd get? I'd say about 80-85%. So add that (say 15%) to his current 20%, and now you need 40 of the remaining 65%.

Without steroids, I doubt if McGwire would've been under 95% - 98%. After all, without steroids, McGwire saved baseball, and you can't get a better narrative than that. There are almost no hardcore / stats only writers in the BBWAA, and anyway, those who'd fall into that category would be far more likely to focus on the home runs and the RBI than on batting average and fielding prowess.

People go to the HOF every year, despite baseball attendance being at all time highs. This policy is just going to hasten it's irrelevance. Far more fans will want to go see McGwire or Sosa enter the hall than McGriff or Concepcion or Mussina. The BBWAA will substitute less popular players, and that will translate into less popularity.

eventually maybe, but not right away, over the next several elections(prior to 2020) you will have Maddux, Randy Johnson, Smoltz, Schilling, Mariano Rivera, Frank Thomas, Ken Griffey Jr, Mike Piazza, Craig Biggio, Pedro Martinez, Chipper, Thome and maybe even Jeter(and longshot at Ichiro) The hof isn't hurting for a while.

I really think folks are wrong about any HOF backlash. If you gave every American a HOF vote, and held the 2012 election, I don't think that Bonds or Clemens would do substantially better than they will among the writers. They might easily do worse.

I disagree here, I think the writers stance on McGwire is a lot more restrictive than the average fan in America. I'm fairly positive if they had to vote for McGwire he would break 40-50% easily.

Well he might, but McGwire is not Bonds or Clemens. Those two are almost sui generis in terms of negative feelings once you get outside their narrow fan bases, which in Clemens' case doesn't even extend to the fans in the towns where he played.

Nobody will notice the absence of Bonds or Clemens, at least not for 5-10 years.

In the plaque room, that's true. But outside the building, Bonds and Clemens won't be absent. They'll be omnipresent.

Maddux or Griffey will get in once. Bonds will be ostentatiously locked out all the time, every time.

Will the Hall of Fame stay unaffected, because of the coming stream of new inductees? Only if you think the 2002 Oscars was a pure, joyous celebration of "Chicago" and Nicole Kidman. Although the comparison would work better if Roman Polanski had lost. And then stuck around for the 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 ballots.

Do you really think that the Hall won't be damaged by 10-20 years where the primary focus is on who's being kept out, instead of who's just gone in?

To put it bluntly, I suspect that'd be your obsession more than that of the average baseball fan.

I'm not obsessed, I'm entertained. My opinion of Barry Larkin hasn't improved in the last week. My opinion of Roger Clemens won't wobble next year.

And your obsession detector may be on the fritz. Is anyone as consumed as the writers who are giddily bouncing up and down, writing cackling previews of which bitches they're purposely not going to invite to their Sweet Sixteen party a year from now?

why does it make no sense? innocent till enough evidence exists to reasonably claim you are guilty is about the most fair way to go about it, if you want to try and keep roiders out of the hof. It's unfair to make assumptions without some evidence beyond heresay, and yes you are right, his way will ensure that a roider eventually does go in, but to some that is more fair than punishing the innocent(kinda similar to the "I would rather have 100 guilty men go free, than have one innocent man in jail" philosophy)

The problem is we have enough evidence to be confident that a majority of players used PEDs at one point or another in their careers before testing began. The policy to ban anyone who admits to using, but to let in anyone who lies about using, is absurd.

It's absurd as denying that Big Mac hit HRs off a lot of juiced up pitchers during his era, or calling steroid use that was allowed under the CBA "cheating" when there always existed a level playing field even in that era.

The BBWAA will substitute less popular players

Now how in the hell could the Hall of Fame ever come up with LESS POPULAR players than the ones who are currently on the writers' steroid #### list? "Popular" is a term that's more associated with inductees like Ripken and Larkin than it is with pariahs like Bonds or Clemens, and outside the stat community there's far more negative feeling towards McGwire than there is towards a Morris or even a Rice.

The problem is we have enough evidence to be confident that a majority of players used PEDs at one point or another in their careers before testing began.

Ahhh, let's just round up all the usual suspects and throw them in internment camps while we're at it.

The policy to ban anyone who admits to using, but to let in anyone who lies about using, is absurd.

And I'm sure that your subscription-only newsletter will confidentially inform us as to just who these liars are.

The problem is we have enough evidence to be confident that a majority of players used PEDs at one point or another in their careers before testing began. The policy to ban anyone who admits to using, but to let in anyone who lies about using, is absurd.

on the face of it maybe, but at the same time, isn't it absurd to ban a guy just because you suspect he used? Again, I don't support the position of banning anyone, I think it's MLB's job to police the issue, and their actions indicate that a voter really shouldn't care. But if I'm a voter who does care, and at the same time, I want to be fair about it, then the most fair policy is to not vote for those (reasonably) proven to have used a PED but without evidence to the contrary, to treat everyone else as innocent.

That is the only fair way to do it, while still actually casting a vote.

and outside the stat community there's far more negative feeling towards McGwire than there is towards a Morris or even a Rice.

and outside of the stat community there is also a lot more name recognition for McGwire than Morris or Rice. Popularity doesn't have to be all about the positive. Heck I absolutely guarantee that if McGwire or Bonds goes in, that there will be people going to the ceremony just to boo/protest.

eventually maybe, but not right away, over the next several elections(prior to 2020) you will have Maddux, Randy Johnson, Smoltz, Schilling, Mariano Rivera, Frank Thomas, Ken Griffey Jr, Mike Piazza, Craig Biggio, Pedro Martinez, Chipper, Thome and maybe even Jeter(and longshot at Ichiro) The hof isn't hurting for a while.

The problem is, how many guys will be able to be elected on such a crowded ballot? Aside from the super obvious, it's going to be tough. And the bigger problem IMO, is the guys who are or should be legit HOF contenders, guys like Rolen and Beltran and maybe Vlad are quite likely to be one and done. It might not be a problem if the voters use all or most of their 10 slots, but I don't see that happening.

Do you really think that the Hall won't be damaged by 10-20 years where the primary focus is on who's being kept out, instead of who's just gone in?

To put it bluntly, I suspect that'd be your obsession more than that of the average baseball fan.

I'm not obsessed, I'm entertained.

I'd say we're both more entertained than obsessed by this, but I'm not sure that many outside observers to our many conversations would agree. And in this case, your ominous prediction of "damage" doesn't exactly correspond with the language of entertainment.

And your obsession detector may be on the fritz. Is anyone as consumed as the writers who are giddily bouncing up and down, writing cackling previews of which ####### they're purposely not going to invite to their Sweet Sixteen party a year from now?

Only those on the other side who mirror their obsessions with "damage", and who proclaim day after day in forums like this about how the Hall of Fame is a "joke" without their statistical heroes up there. You tell me where these people lie on your Obsession Meter.

and outside the stat community there's far more negative feeling towards McGwire than there is towards a Morris or even a Rice.

and outside of the stat community there is also a lot more name recognition for McGwire than Morris or Rice. Popularity doesn't have to be all about the positive. Heck I absolutely guarantee that if McGwire or Bonds goes in, that there will be people going to the ceremony just to boo/protest.

Could be, though for the life of me I can't understand why anyone would take the trouble.

The problem is, how many guys will be able to be elected on such a crowded ballot? Aside from the super obvious, it's going to be tough. And the bigger problem IMO, is the guys who are or should be legit HOF contenders, guys like Rolen and Beltran and maybe Vlad are quite likely to be one and done. It might not be a problem if the voters use all or most of their 10 slots, but I don't see that happening.

From the halls perspective 1 or 2 a year is all they care about, if they think they are going to have a year where no one is going in, then they'll act, until then they are waiting around. They have a precedent of putting a list of select names back on the ballot, they've done it before, and there is no reason to think they won't do it again.

I understand the thought process around here were we are seeing the future and can kinda gauge what is going to happen, and worrying about it, but I don't think the hof is that worried about it, and if necessary, I don't put it past them to fudge a vote total to ensure someone goes in each year.

Could be, though for the life of me I can't understand why anyone would take the trouble.

There is a lot of things people do that for the life of me I couldn't understand why they take the trouble. But people will do something like that. It's not something I doubt at all.

I don't think they will lose the vote, but rather the HOF will empower more people to vote in order to lessen their influence

Wouldn't that take a whole LOT of dilution? Seems reasonable they would get 20% if McGwire is getting 20%, which was about 115 votes this year when it took 430 to get elected. So add 315 voters, who all vote for them, and you now have 430 out of 888 votes, not 75%. Now you need 666 votes to get in, so grab another 236 voters. That's 666 out of 1124, still not 75% and you've essentially doubled the number of voters. I'm not very good with numbers, so maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but it seems like they'd have to add an awful lot of voters and then still hope that ALL the new guys will vote for the candidates they want elected.

I tend to think they'd go in the other direction and be more restrictive with who votes. Take the vote away from some of the guys who haven't been actively covering the game for years, guys who are retired, etc. Trim the fat and get the number of voters down closer to 300 than 500.

The writers still fax in their ballots? I don't think we can trust people who use fax machines to vote for the HOF.

The writers still fax in their ballots? I don't think we can trust people who use fax machines to vote for the HOF.

Would you even allow email? Too easy to hack, I think.

his career value is adequate for the hall, and his peak value is easily among the greatest ever.

No, it's really not. I used PI, so this is BRef WAR, McGwire's highest level consists of just 3 seasons over 6 WAR (if you're talking epic peak, you better be over 6): 7.2, 6.8 and 6.5. It's dwarfed by Gehrig, Foxx, Greenberg, and Mize (Pujols, too, though he's not retired yet). Contemporaries like Helton, Bagwell, Thomas and Giambi all easily match it. McCovey matches it. Bill Terry matches it. Sisler is right there. Musial's top 3 seasons as a 1B are right there. And I'm only looking at 1B!

Run a WAR Graph at Fangraphs and you'll see the same thing. Graph McGwire, Helton, Bagwell, Thomas and Giambi and you'll see Giambi had the highest season. In season 2 McGwire's essentially the same as all of them except Bagwell, who has a slight edge. By season 3 he's the lowest by a tick to Giambi. In season 4 he's above Giambi, but well behind all the others. In season 5 Helton falls back to him, but he's still behind Bagwell and Thomas. He stays behind Bagwell and Thomas until season 9. That's not a peak among the greatest ever. It's not even the best of his own time among only 1B.

Mr. Bonds Blew Cooperstown

That would make a great gay porn video title.

I don't think they will lose the vote, but rather the HOF will empower more people to vote in order to lessen their influence

Wouldn't that take a whole LOT of dilution? Seems reasonable they would get 20% if McGwire is getting 20%, which was about 115 votes this year when it took 430 to get elected. So add 315 voters, who all vote for them, and you now have 430 out of 888 votes, not 75%. Now you need 666 votes to get in, so grab another 236 voters. That's 666 out of 1124, still not 75% and you've essentially doubled the number of voters. I'm not very good with numbers, so maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but it seems like they'd have to add an awful lot of voters and then still hope that ALL the new guys will vote for the candidates they want elected.

That sounds like FDR's court-packing scheme on steroids, and it would have about as much chance of success. It might be easier just to put out a few contracts on selected Bonds naysayers and hope that the rest of them get the message.

Mr. Bonds Blew Cooperstown

That would make a great gay porn video title.

I prefer the kinky father-son one, "Bonds on Bonds." Just look at his head!

Re: #60 and "damage"--
No, the Hall of Fame isn't going to look like Hogwarts at the end of the last movie. No one will be able to point to an unsold ticket to the museum. The Induction Weekend dance cards are booked for the next decade.

However, the writers are taking a big and unique step up, to a long run of negativity. And not just negativity, but to judge from the early columns-- the first of hundreds-- gleeful, vindictive negativity. Negativity that some of them are looking forward to like a kid at the top of the stairs on Christmas Eve.

You think this isn't going to happen? You think it's not already happening? You don't think it will represent a sea change in the process? You don't think that will hurt the bucolic nostalgia and goodwill that Cooperstown kills itself to promote? If it was an affront when Scott Boras announced A-Rod's contract opt-out during the World Series, what effect do you think the annual "Fuck you Barry" tradition is going to have? It's not obsessive to see this coming; it's obliviousness not to.

Terrance Moore was a columnist in Atlanta since 1984.. I sure would like to see what he wrote about Red Sox fans chanting "Steroids, Steroids" at Jose Conseco in the 1989 playoffs. I am sure it was ground breaking stuff.

Joe Po ran a poll on his blog asking people to vote on this year's HOF ballot. McGwire got 53% of the vote. Palmeiro got 21%.

I would suggest that this sample is skewed dramatically towards people who would tend not to care so much about steroids, since Joe is pretty mild on this issue. And yet even his fans would not put either guy in. In order to get McGwire in, you would have to add 500 carefully selected people who can prove they have a McGwire jersey at home. Even then, he might not slip through.

I think the BBWAA is more representative of baseball fans than a collection of bloggers would be. And I say that as someone who would likely vote for McGwire.

Again, I think many people are just assuming that some magic man will come and fix this. It ain't getting fixed.

Do you really think that the Hall won't be damaged by 10-20 years where the primary focus is on who's being kept out, instead of who's just gone in?

The Hall of Fame and Museum is first and foremost a tourist trap, designed to lure people to Cooperstown. Any positive good it does in preserving the history and study of the game (when it isn't allowing its artifacts to be stolen, or buying phony "authenticated" goods) is nice, but purely incidental.

The handful of statgeeks who boycott it because Clemens, Bonds and Sosa are not given a plaque is not going to have a major affect on the bottom line, because they are not the main market (and those cheap SOB's living in their parents' basement don't spend all that much, especially since they are the least likely to procreate and bring a wife and/or children with them). As long as they have their induction weeks with the fanboys showing up to cheer, drink and buy -- and there are plenty of players that will be inducted -- the museum will go on.

Re: #60 and "damage"--
No, the Hall of Fame isn't going to look like Hogwarts at the end of the last movie. No one will be able to point to an unsold ticket to the museum. The Induction Weekend dance cards are booked for the next decade.

However, the writers are taking a big and unique step up, to a long run of negativity. And not just negativity, but to judge from the early columns-- the first of hundreds-- gleeful, vindictive negativity. Negativity that some of them are looking forward to like a kid at the top of the stairs on Christmas Eve.

You think this isn't going to happen? You think it's not already happening? You don't think it will represent a sea change in the process? You don't think that will hurt the bucolic nostalgia and goodwill that Cooperstown kills itself to promote? If it was an affront when Scott Boras announced A-Rod's contract opt-out during the World Series, what effect do you think the annual \"#### you Barry" tradition is going to have? It's not obsessive to see this coming; it's obliviousness not to.

The "gleeful negativity" of some writers is certainly out there, and what you describe could well happen the first time or two. But at some point the novelty will wear off and the number of columns like that will rapidly decline, especially if Bonds's chance of getting to 75% seems to be a remote prospect. Hell, I think it would wear off even here in Steroid Nation if Repoz would stop posting every last pinata post column. People react to these like Pavlov's dogs reacted to the anticipation of their feeding, but how many Primates actually are posting these silly articles themselves?

What you're just going to have to accept, though at this point I doubt you ever will, is that the reason for all these anti-steroids jeremiads is that at least most of the writers in question honestly feel that Bonds and his fellow juicers violated the code of the game in a unique manner by doing what they did. You've rightly pointed out all the hypocrisies and the glass houses among many of these writers, but the fact that many of them should feel a twinge of guilt about not speaking up sooner isn't going to change the situation. And unless the great majority of those McGwire blackballers turn out to be steroids discounters and figure that Bonds was a HoFer before he started juicing, I'm afraid that the two sides in this little civil war are going to be staring at and growling at each other for some time to come, with neither side backing down.

Which of course I'm sure you'll agree will add up to great entertainment for us, and more filthy lucre for Repoz. Not to mention that the Steroid Nation Primates who think that some of us are the second coming of Murray Chass can vent their Chass-level anger at our refusal to see things their way, further entertaining themselves in the process. It's truly a win-win situation for pretty much all concerned, with the only real losers a few stupid jocks who should've thought about what they were doing, but who mistakenly thought they were above it all.

I used PI, so this is BRef WAR

otherwords the useful war. (at least as it pertains to all positions other than pitchers, catchers and first base... but still much better than the mess at fangraphs, which nobody would actually consider using ahead of bb-ref.

Of course, again the point of Macs peak which seems to elude some people, is that his oWar per plate appearance is historic. Not per season. I mean if a guy plays 135 games a season and has 7 war, nobody is going to think he's inferior to a guy who played 160 games in a season and posted a 7.2 war. At least I hope not.

The handful of statgeeks who boycott it because Clemens, Bonds and Sosa

Handful has to be an overstatement. I mean I guess if you mean handful is 8 or so guys then sure, but there is absolutely no functioning human being, that is a baseball fan, that would boycott cooperstown solely because of No Clemens, Bonds or McGwire. I do not know how anyone could honestly think that there are people like this. Yes there are fans who will complain about them not going in, but they aren't going to boycott a planned visit to cooperstown because of their lack. They might not go until they get in, because they were planning on going to their ceremony, but that is not a boycott, that is a change of plans. Heck as it stands right now, I know for sure I'll go to cooperstown when Ted Simmons gets in, until then I don't have any plans to go. Again, that isn't a boycott, to call it one would be delusional.

but still much better than the mess at fangraphs, which nobody would actually consider using ahead of bb-ref.

The person I was responding to did, so I felt it appropriate to mention.

Of course, again the point of Macs peak which seems to elude some people, is that his oWar per plate appearance is historic.

If you have to get arcane to show his historic peak, it doesn't seem as historic to me.

I mean if a guy plays 135 games a season and has 7 war, nobody is going to think he's inferior to a guy who played 160 games in a season and posted a 7.2 war.

No, probably not, but when a guy's best season is 7.2 and there are several guys just at his position who had better seasons, significantly better, you have to realize he was not quite as good as them (inferior seems too harsh).

Of course, again the point of Macs peak which seems to elude some people, is that his oWar per plate appearance is historic. Not per season. I mean if a guy plays 135 games a season and has 7 war, nobody is going to think he's inferior to a guy who played 160 games in a season and posted a 7.2 war. At least I hope not.

Wait, don't you usually argue that WAR's penalties for missing playing time are too small?

I think I've hit my breaking point for this HoF round about halfway through reading this thread but ...

On Bonds' popularity ...

I don't think anybody has brought this up before (although it might be upthread)

The BALCO raid happened Sept 2003.

Testing begins in 2004. I don't recall when Bonds's name came out but he won the 2004 MVP so I assume not that year.

The news reports about his leaked grand jury testimony were 2005. Bonds was hurt almost the entire year.

Game of Shadows came out in 2006. Bonds had a "poor" first half (249/474/497) and was not on the AS team.

Barry Bonds was elected to the All-Star team in 2007. His first half 295/512/589 might have had something to do with that. He had the 4th highest vote total (2.3+), 600 K behind leader Griffey at 2.9, also behind Fielder and Beltran just ahead of Wright. So still popular with fans in 2007.

Yes, it could ALL be SF ballot stuffing ... but not unless they stuff ballots at a rate much higher than other teams' fans do.

Of course, again the point of Macs peak which seems to elude some people, is that his oWar per plate appearance is historic. Not per season. I mean if a guy plays 135 games a season and has 7 war, nobody is going to think he's inferior to a guy who played 160 games in a season and posted a 7.2 war. At least I hope not.

To reiterate this... why, if you like this argument, would one pick Mark McGwire over Dick Allen, who you've argued against relentlessly in the past? Allen has a higher oWAR than McGwire in fewer PA; his top 2 oWAR totals are better than McGwire's best, and his top 4 are better than Mac's second-best. McGwire's OPS+ is a little higher, but Allen ran pretty acceptably and could fake his way through third base as a young guy. The difference between them is paper thin at best.

The Hall has a real problem on its hands.

Of course nobody who visits Cooperstown ever ventures beyond the plaque room,

Andy, the question is whether the same numbers of people will be visiting Cooperstown.

I do agree with you, though, that without the steroids issue McGwire sails into the Hall with something like 95%. People forget how well loved and respected he was. I still remember Buck's call of McGwire's 62nd home run: "How much more can you give us, Big Mac!?"

When McGwire came to the plate it was an Event. People stopped to watch his at bats when they could. They knew they were watching greatness.

I too read about half of this thread when that feeling of deja vu set in. My 2 cents are equally dejavueristic but here goes. Bonds and Clemens will not get in in 15 years. But some who are elected will later be found to have used steroids, making the black and white rule obsolete. Yeah, then it gets nasty. Then, maybe Bonds and Clemens even get in, but I doubt it. A bunch of jealous writers are unlikely to change their tune just because their moral high ground is found to be a fiction. And when I say nasty, I do think nasty enough that MLB will step in and try to referee things a bit, though it will not help.

Of course nobody who visits Cooperstown ever ventures beyond the plaque room,

Andy, the question is whether the same numbers of people will be visiting Cooperstown.

The problem is that neither you nor anyone else can reliably peg Cooperstown attendance to the identity of any inductee other than a genuinely popular hero whose fan base is within driving distance of the Hall. There's absolutely no guarantee that a "villain"'s fan base would make up for the number of people who might stay away in protest. (or vice versa)

I do agree with you, though, that without the steroids issue McGwire sails into the Hall with something like 95%. People forget how well loved and respected he was. I still remember Buck's call of McGwire's 62nd home run: "How much more can you give us, Big Mac!?"

When McGwire came to the plate it was an Event. People stopped to watch his at bats when they could. They knew they were watching greatness.

With the steroids cloud not hanging over him, I seriously can't imagine more than the usual number of "no first ballot for anyone" voters choosing not to check the name of the man who destroyed one of history's more sacred records with a season's worth of Ruthian blasts and "saved baseball" in the bargain with his lovable Cubby buddy.

Ah, what could've been.....

I do agree with you, though, that without the steroids issue McGwire sails into the Hall with something like 95%. People forget how well loved and respected he was. I still remember Buck's call of McGwire's 62nd home run: "How much more can you give us, Big Mac!?"

Only if they held the vote right at the end of the 1998 season. Even without steroids there would be enough time for people to knock him for his batting average and not doing anything outside of hitting homers. People have brought up Killebrew who is a good comp. I don't think he takes 4 ballots like Harmon, or 5 like Eddie Matthews. Willie McCovey went in first ballot, but with 81% of the vote.

On the perception of McGwire and whether he was viewed as a sure Hall of Famer when he retired, here's a 2001 column from Verducci in which Verducci takes it as a given that McGwire will be inducted:

November 26, 2001
Bash Call
Big Mac has a clear path to the Hall, but what about Jose Canseco?
Tom Verducci

On Aug. 22, 1986, Mark McGwire made his major league debut in an Oakland Athletics lineup that included another 22-year-old slugger, Jose Canseco. The nickname would come later, but the Bash Brothers had started pounding away.

Fifteen years later McGwire has retired as one of the game's mythic figures. In 2007 Cal Ripken, Tony Gwynn and Rickey Henderson (if he doesn't play again) will join him as Coopers-town enshrines one of the greatest groups of first-ballot Hall of Famers.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1024378/index.htm

Incidentally, has Verducci been voting for McGwire? Why or why not?

Here's the history of the BBWAA:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hall-of-fame-ballot-history.shtml

Very few players get anywhere near 95% of the vote. Teddy Freakin ballgame didn't. Mantle didn't even get 90%, and neither did Koufax. Sure, it's (mostly) a different group of writers than that. But I can't see him getting more support than Winfield or Murray (85%).

Verducci voted for Larkin, Raines, McGriff, and Bagwell.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/tom_verducci/01/06/hall.of.fame.ballot/index.html

Very few players get anywhere near 95% of the vote. Teddy Freakin ballgame didn't. Mantle didn't even get 90%, and neither did Koufax. Sure, it's (mostly) a different group of writers than that. But I can't see him getting more support than Winfield or Murray (85%).

Scanning down the list... Henderson, Ripken, Ryan, Seaver, Schmidt, Bench, Aaron, Mays all got 95% or above.

Call it 90%, if you want. 85%. He was sailing in.

From Joe Sheehan's newsletter:

...The character clause has been used perhaps twice in MLB history to keep a player out of the Hall -- on Joe Jackson, for obvious reasons, and Dick Allen, for cloudier ones. Cheating? You have got to be kidding me. Every form of cheating in MLB history had been glorified or whitewashed until it was magically decided that steroids were a bridge too far. John McGraw. Hughie Jennings. Whitey Ford. Gaylord Perry. Everybody from 1965 to 2009…

...There's a stronger case to be made for the effect of amphetamines -- just as illegal as steroids -- on the performance records of baseball players as there is for the effect of steroids on them. Amphetamine use, however, has been whitewashed. Under the character clause, there is no difference between the use of one set of illegal "performance-enhancing" drugs that everybody accepted with a wink and a nod and another set of illegal "performance-enhancing" drugs that everybody accepted with a wink and a nod until Bud Selig needed leverage and Congress needed a punching bag.

... Cheating has never, ever been cause for keeping someone out of the Hall of Fame, and quite frankly, almost no other behavior that reveals character -- from racism to violence to alcohol and drug abuse to off-field criminal activity -- ever has either. Hiding behind the character clause says a lot more about the voter than it does the players.

Cooperstown is becoming increasingly irrelevant to me personally, and my guess it is mainly because of the way we view the game. WIth sabermetrics and all that people analyze the game more in terms of stats. And we pay more attention to defensive metrics. And OBP etc. etc.

When we think of the game in terms of "innings eaters" or dollars per win; or "replacement level" we are thinking and analyzing the game differently than the last generation.

In the depression days we might have read stories of thrifty ball players and speakeasies. Now we read about shooting roids and paternity suits. There's no doubt we change the lens of how we view the game.

In a sense, Cooperstown is a victim of its own success. If we didnt care passionately about career achievements and players in context and how we value skill sets none of this debate would be happening. But because it is, then we analyze it more closely and we see how utterly political and mercenary the whole system is and we hate it.

When we still worshipped ball players (long ago) we still viewed the Hall of Fame as sort of a sacred cow and so we didnt really dissect it as it were. So it was fine.

At least that's for me how it came about. I used to care about this HoF stuff and then I really got into the whole Bill James look at the institution and thought I really cared about it, but in the end it just exposed itself to what it is and I gave up on the whole thing.

So "no" keeping Bonds, CLemens out is probably not gonna make or break it, there are too many other trends in motion that will take care of that. But I will say that the PED controvery is sort of a reflection of the whole jaded process. So I sort of see your pt. but it's more of a symptom rather than a reason.

Wait, don't you usually argue that WAR's penalties for missing playing time are too small?

Yes. I absolutely think that being healthy is a massively undervalued skill.

The Mac argument is a different argument. There are people who are claiming he isn't a historically great offensive player, and that is just plain not true when evaluated in a purely rate perspective.

I have no problem arguing different positions. Mac's hof case is that he is a historically high rate offensive player, who managed to accumulate enough season durability to qualify for the hall. His rate per plate appearance is historic. Factor in that he's able to do it for a significant career, including a great four year stretch of being healthy, and he's basically Koufax of hitters. (maybe slightly better due to career lenghth) either way, by the numbers and "value" Mac is a hof if you don't let roids guide your vote.

To reiterate this... why, if you like this argument, would one pick Mark McGwire over Dick Allen, who you've argued against relentlessly in the past? Allen has a higher oWAR than McGwire in fewer PA; his top 2 oWAR totals are better than McGwire's best, and his top 4 are better than Mac's second-best. McGwire's OPS+ is a little higher, but Allen ran pretty acceptably and could fake his way through third base as a young guy. The difference between them is paper thin at best.

I've argued against dick allen simply because he is a dick. He's the type of guy who his entire argument is based upon borderline stats, and his entire career is designed to negate those stats. Quitting on his team, poor defense, missed playing times etc. I do not think any borderline players argument is based solely on stats. you have to be a moron to think that. Dick Allen went out of his way to hurt his canidacy. He's a designated hitter before they had that job. If the Dh existed early in his career, he might be Edgar Martinez or Ortiz.


But ultimately I have no problem with Dick Allen going in. He just wouldn't have my theoretical vote.

#67 Dale Stephenson has his batting peak at #6 among first-basemen -- basically tied with Willie McCovey for #5. Albert Pujols wasn't included (last update to Dale's lists were in 2002) and ... well maybe McGwire's batting peak is a little better than Pujols' (since Pujols' strength is that he basically grinds out the same great year every year)

So anyhow, by the most generous definition possible he might be considered top 5 ish at his position. It's a great peak, don't get me wrong. But Jeff Bagwell's (just) ahead of him (and Dale doesn't include base running, reaching on error -- at which McGwire was unusually poor; according to Tom Ruane the worst in the retrosheet era). It's nothing close to as good as you're arguing (particularly once you factor in all of the minor negatives)

It's pretty much the minimum you can have for a peak/extended prime candidacy.

I posted #12 and then promptly forgot about this thread. Oops.

Anyway, I'm probably biased since I grew up two hours from Cooperstown and the HOF is one of my favorite places on Earth, but I stand by my assertion that a HOF without Bonds, Clemens, et al., won't be much of a HOF. Nobody cares that a Bonds bat or a Clemens glove is on display in the museum; for generations, baseball fans have expected the absolute best players of each era to be inducted into the HOF, which the BBWAA now seems hellbent on preventing for reasons that would be silly if they weren't so utterly pathetic. As more and more elite players end up missing from the HOF, the less the HOF will be respected and seen as the hallmark of an MLB career.

In terms of dollars and cents, with HOF attendance down approx. 25 percent since 2007 and down over 33 percent from the late-'80s highs [thanks, Repoz], and with the HOF reportedly bleeding cash, it seems like the BBWAA is playing with fire in a shrine it doesn't own.

well maybe McGwire's batting peak is a little better than Pujols' (since Pujols' strength is that he basically grinds out the same great year every year)

Pujols' problem is that he has to have an Albert Pujols season relative to his own baseline for anyone to realize how good a baseline Albert Pujols season is. He's already 28th in career WAR for position players (42nd overall) in just 11 seasons. There have been 284 8+ WAR seasons by hitters in the last 110 years. Pujols has averaged 8 WAR/season over his 11 year career. I think McGwire's a pretty easy HOFer (ignoring the steroids issue), and Pujols is significantly better than him on peak and career right now.

Pujols/McGwire oWAR and WAR, best 11 seasons.

9.5/8.8 - 10.9/7.2
7.9/6.8 - 9.6/6.8
7.8/6.6 - 9.4/6.5
7.7/6.4 - 8.8/5.7
7.4/6.2 - 8.3/5.5
7.2/5.9 - 8.3/5.5
7.0/4.4 - 8.2/5.4
6.4/4.4 - 7.1/4.5
6.2/3.5 - 6.9/3.3
5.8/3.3 - 5.8/2.7
4.5/2.4 - 5.4/2.7

I'm probably biased since I grew up two hours from Cooperstown and the HOF is one of my favorite places on Earth, but I stand by my assertion that a HOF without Bonds, Clemens, et al., won't be much of a HOF. Nobody cares that a Bonds bat or a Clemens glove is on display in the museum; for generations, baseball fans have expected the absolute best players of each era to be inducted into the HOF, which the BBWAA now seems hellbent on preventing for reasons that would be silly if they weren't so utterly pathetic. As more and more elite players end up missing from the HOF, the less the HOF will be respected and seen as the hallmark of an MLB career.

You continue to have an amazing way of conflating your own view with that of the rest of the baseball world.

In terms of dollars and cents, with HOF attendance down approx. 25 percent since 2007 and down over 33 percent from the late-'80s highs [thanks, Repoz], and with the HOF reportedly bleeding cash, it seems like the BBWAA is playing with fire in a shrine it doesn't own.

Of course that article you link to is behind a paywall, so there's no way of seeing anything beyond the headline, which says that the HoF reported a loss of about $2.36 million in 2010.** That "playing with fire" loss amounts to about 2/3 of the salary of one (1) average ballplayer. Given the state of the economy since 2007, given the fact that this is bound to be reflected in attendance, and given that 2007 witnessed the inductions of arguably the two most popular players in recent years (Ripken and Gwynn), I'd hardly call this any cause for panic.

**Since as recently as 2007 it posted a profit of over $7 million, I think it's safe to say that it may have a certain amount of cash of its own in reserve, even if every indignant Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire corporate fan in Steroid Nation began withholding its donations in protest of their exclusion.

And BTW that paywall article headline also says that "donations increase". If you think that baseball or its corporate sponsors are going to let the HoF go out of business for the want of a few million dollars a year, I have to wonder what planet you're living on.

You continue to have an amazing way of conflating your own view with that of the rest of the baseball world.

Right back at you. Baseball fans disgusted by the strike responded by staying away in droves. Baseball fans disgusted by PEDs responded by ... setting attendance record after attendance record? Driving MLB's revenue north of $7 billion per year? Making MLBAM the most successful digital operation in U.S. pro sports? Setting new records for local TV viewership?

Sorry; does not compute. PED moralists are a very vocal minority, but a minority nonetheless.

Given the state of the economy since 2007, given the fact that this is bound to be reflected in attendance, and given that 2007 witnessed the inductions of arguably the two most popular players in recent years (Ripken and Gwynn), I'd hardly call this any cause for panic.

As is viewable in the non-paywall part of the story, the HOF has lost money in seven of the last nine years, a period that includes the recession but also the five or six very prosperous years that preceded it. Given that MLB and MiLB attendance and revenue have spiked over the same period, the HOF's declining attendance and revenue seem troubling.

And BTW that paywall article headline also says that "donations increase". If you think that baseball or its corporate sponsors are going to let the HoF go out of business for the want of a few million dollars a year, I have to wonder what planet you're living on.

Surviving off donations isn't much of a business model. But anyway, who said anything about the HOF going out of business? I've been talking about a loss of relevance and prestige, not padlocks on the doors.

Right back at you. Baseball fans disgusted by the strike responded by staying away in droves. Baseball fans disgusted by PEDs responded by ... setting attendance record after attendance record? Driving MLB's revenue north of $7 billion per year? Making MLBAM the most successful digital operation in U.S. pro sports? Setting new records for local TV viewership?

The masses crave their entertainment and won't be deterred if the entertainers aren't sportsmen.

Film at 11.

Incidentally, has Verducci been voting for McGwire? Why or why not?

No. Either he doesn't trust the statistical record McGwire accumulated, or he doesn't think 'roiders should be in the Hall of Fame.

When McGwire came to the plate it was an Event. People stopped to watch his at bats when they could.

They also stopped to watch the sword swallower, the bearded lady, Evel Knieval jumping the Snake River Canyon, and the simp interposing his solar plexus in the path of a cannonball.