Last year's results

BBTF has elected Bonds and Clemens every year since 2015, Rolen since 2019
Schilling had been elected every year since 2016 but dropped off
Manny was elected 2020-21, Helton last year. This is the first time we have elected Sheffield.

The most interesting answer here is Ortiz. This has to be one do the more favorable Ortiz communities so this would suggest he’ll end up in the 40-50 range. How does sammy Sosa end up almost identical to Ortiz ?

I would think Ortiz would be elected by the voters. He was well-loved by the writers (actually, who doesn't) and Fangraphs even likes him, and the article in Fangraphs also points out the lack of definite evidence re:steroids.

Looking at the players who missed election here, Sheffield is such an odd choice to be one of the ones to make it.

[1] I feel like Sheffield was a victim of the crowded ballot for a long time. Lots of people siad they supported him but didn’t have room to vote for him, but now they have room.

Sheffield placing 4th is a fun little oddity. The consensus top 5 players are Bonds, Clemens, Rolen, ARod, and Schilling, but the latter two have their issues obviously.

Is Sheffield the 6th best player on the ballot? I'm not sure I'd say that, but he definitely is in that conversation.

Lack of evidence for David Ortiz steroids usage? He has the same Mitchell-verified positive steroids test in 2003 that a lot of other players have. His complaint that it was due to some medicine or whatever he took rings every bit as hollow as Barry's comments that he didn't know what was in the flaxseed oil he was putting on his knees. The writers will elect Ortiz because they love him and will gladly turn a blind eye to his failed drug test. Other players with no more actual evidence than this have been treated far worse by the writers and this will continue to happen going forward.

Let's watch the loose talk about 'roids, please.

Per Wikipedia:

"On July 30, 2009, The New York Times, citing anonymous sources, reported that Ortiz was among a group of over 100 major league players on a list compiled by federal investigators, that allegedly tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs during Major League Baseball survey testing conducted in spring training of 2003...

"On August 8, 2009, Ortiz held a press conference before a game at Yankee Stadium and denied ever buying or using steroids [...] On the same day, both Major League Baseball and the Major League Baseball Players Association issued statements pointing out that because of several factors, any player appearing on the list compiled by federal investigators in 2003 did not necessarily test positive for performance-enhancing drugs. Among those factors were that the total number of players said to be on the list far exceeded the number of collected specimens that tested positive. In addition, there were questions raised regarding the lab that performed the testing and their interpretation of the positive tests. Also, the statement pointed out that certain legal supplements that were available over the counter at the time could cause a positive test result.

"On October 2, 2016 at a press conference at Fenway Park, MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred said it was "entirely possible" Ortiz did not test positive during the MLB survey drug testing in 2003. The commissioner stated that the alleged failed test should not harm Ortiz's legacy, and that there were "legitimate scientific questions about whether or not those were truly positives". Manfred added "Those particular tests were inconclusive because "it was hard to distinguish between certain substances that were legal, available over the counter, and not banned under our program." He also said "Ortiz has never been a positive at any point under our program" since MLB began testing in 2004 and that it is unfair for Hall of Fame voters to consider "leaks, rumors, innuendo and non-confirmed positive test results" when assessing a player."

"[Ortiz's] complaint that it was due to some medicine or whatever he took rings every bit as hollow as Barry's comments that he didn't know what was in the flaxseed oil he was putting on his knees."

The weight of evidence against Bonds is staggering and meticulously documented. Game of Shadows gives a good overview.

The 'evidence' against Ortiz is the one test - and I think the line "the total number of players said to be on the list far exceeded the number of collected specimens that tested positive" says everything we need to know about the validity of that 'evidence.'

...Curse this editing system!!

This discussion reminds me of the famous quote from Love, Actually by Billy Mack on his comeback tour when addressing a studio full of pre-teens

“Hiya kids. Here is an important message from your Uncle Bill. Don't buy drugs. Become a pop star, and they give you them for free.”

Saying you never bought drugs doesn’t really say anything.

test

Anyone know how to get rid of the spammer?

I dunno, let's not be hasty - some of those links were great. I, for one, have never corresponded with a Nigerian billionaire before.

Let's watch the loose talk about 'roids, please.

Naah, everybody who was big and hit home runs is guilty! Guilty, I says...!

I wasn't going to re-start the 'roids conversation - but as that's already been done by another poster...

"Saying you never bought drugs doesn’t really say anything."

As Norman Mailer said at the trial of the Chicago 8: "Facts, sir, are nothing without their nuance."

Now, I'm probably not going to have Ortiz on my 2023 ballot - or if I do, he's not going to receive a very high place. But that's a reflection of lack of games played in the field, not on supposed 'roid use.

To argue that "saying you didn't do something is meaningless" is the same as saying, "Everyone who's accused of somethng is guilty and can't be proven innocent."

I refer you back to post 8. The actual, incontrovertible evidence that Ortiz took 'roids' is zero - and there's a certain amount of evidence pointing to the likelihood that he didn't.

Just sayin'.