It always seemed unfair to me that when the HOF cut the time of the ballot from 15 to 10 years that they did not grandfather the players that were already on the ballot. It gives the impression that they were targeting Roger Clemans and Barry Bonds.

Well that was the reason for the rule change, so you should get that impression.

Change is hard, so the Baseball Hall of Fame will still be in Cooperstown in 2040.

They did grandfather the players on the ballot who had already been on it for more than 10 but fewer than 15 years.

Serious question for Primates: Suppose you could pick up the Hall and transplant it anywhere else. What would be the most appropriate place to put it, factoring in the game's history, ease of access as a tourist destination, possibilities for community outreach, etc.?

Hoboken. But I’m not sure why you’d move it. Cooperstown is lovely in the summer. And the trip is part of the experience. No matter where the hall was located, very very few people would go more than once a decade. So it should be a destination.

Serious question for Primates: Suppose you could pick up the Hall and transplant it anywhere else. What would be the most appropriate place to put it, factoring in the game's history, ease of access as a tourist destination, possibilities for community outreach, etc.?

Columbia Missouri....

The Baseball Hall of Fame and Cooperstown, now and forever, one and inseparable!

I agree that Cooperstown is a fantastic location, and I'd never want to move it, but as a second choice... Coogan's Bluff strikes me as a decent option - New York is a pretty important city for baseball historically, and it's a hub both for tourism and museum/preservation stuff. And it's right next to Yankee Stadium, making it easily accessable for baseball fans, but it wouldn't be obviously a Yankee-bias thing since you have the Giants' presence there too. If the Hall didn't exist and I were building a baseball history museum, that would probably be my choice.

New York bogarting something from New Jersey would continue a long tradition.

they still pretend the Statue of Liberty is in NY, while NJ stole the Giants and Jets (and Nets for 35 years, after NY first stole them from NJ for a dozen years), and so on.

the Meadowlands Sports Complex already IS a tourist destination (3M sq ft retail and entertainment site with indoor amusement park, water park, skiing, ice skating, aquarium, LegoLand, etc), along with MetLife Stadium and most important harness racing track in the world.

open a casino there (which will happen anyway) alongside the Baseball HOF, and MLB would be giddy beyond belief at the tie-ins. the FanDuel Sportsbook at that racetrack already is the top-grossing such site in the U.S. and maybe beyond - and it just has sports betting.

I know I've been beating the dead horse here, but I really do worry about the upcoming election drought. Joey Votto has to be the poster child for the relevant factors. He this season has just cleared 2000 hits, 300 home runs, and 1000 RBI's. Yeah, I'd vote for him, but unless the writers adjust their standards a bit there's going to be a lot of snubbed players starting in the late 2020's.

I believe there is a rumor that Fanatics will buy exclusive rights to the Hall of Fame and move all the memorabilia to Las Vegas. Cooperstown will get to keep the building, the ballpark and Joe Pepitones stolen bat.

The article highlighted how many vets candidates have made it versus those put in by writers. I knew the vets had been active but not this active

#11 ... there's such a dearth of obvious candidates coming up that voters won't have any real choice but to vote in players like Votto. There won't be more than a player or two to actually "snub." I shared your concern for a number of years but the elections of Walker and Halladay, Rolen getting to 53%, Helton to 45% strongly suggest that the saber-good, mileston-bad player is getting votes, at least in the absence of good traditional candidates.

Schilling, Bonds, Clemens, Sosa all come off the ballot one way or another this year. Rolen then leads the way with 70 WAR and, Manny aside, then there are some guys in the low 60s. The only mega-WAR candidate coming the next 4 years is ARod who has a few issues. Beltran is Rolen but now has Astros stink. That leaves Beltre (OK, we can call him mega-WAR), Ichiro and Ortiz as the "obvious guys." Utley is going to be an interesting one -- without an MVP I think he'll have a pretty tough time.

Among active WAR leaders, obviously Pujols and Miggy enter in 6-8 years (depending on when they hit the ballot). Verlander, Scherzer, Kershaw and probably Greinke all make it but no signs any of them are done yet. Among players over 30, Longoria will proably crack 60 but not by much; Goldschmidt probably won't. Then you get youngsters like Trout, Betts and Machado who aren't gonna hit the ballot until 2036 or later. Point being over about a 10-year run starting 6+ years from now, Votto will surely be among the top 10 (probably 7-8) to hit the ballot.

Active players 35+ by WAR:

Pujols 99
Greinke 74
Verlander 72
Cano 70 (nope)
Miggy 69
Scherzer 65
Votto 63
Hamels 59 (nope)
Longoria 57 (maybe very slowly)
Gardner 44 (obviously not just showing how big the drop is)
Posey 44 (actually only 34 but we'll give him a year for catching)

The only other guys over 30 are Kershaw 72 (easy), Goldschmidt 48 (does not look good), maybe Sale 46 (if he comes back strong) ... then the special case of deGrom who'll they put in if they can.

So each of those guys will be entering a ballot where ARod and Beltran will be the only guys substantially above 60 WAR. Rolen, Vizquel, Sheff, Jones, Kent, Manny will all be gone one way of the other when the first of these hits the ballot; Helton will be in his last year at best. Looks to me like Buehrle, Hunter, Abreu and Hudson will be the best backloggers.

Batters, >=55 WAR, by decade of debut

1960s 18 (8 HoF plus Rose and Torre)
1970s 19 (12 plus famous snubs)
1980s 18 (10 + Bonds, Palmeiro, Mac, Sosa, Sheff)
1990s 21 (8 + Beltre, Ortiz, ARod, Beltran, Manny; none active)
2000s 8 ... and the only active guys below that are McCutchen 46, Posey 44, Gardner 44, Cruz 42, Yadi 42. Obviously Posey & Yadi are serious candidates

So something happened there and, unless greenies = roids (unpossible!!), it wasn't PEDs. Some of what happened there was injury (Pedroia, Wright, Tulo) but presumably that was true in other eras too. Anyway, it's clear Votto is one of the best candidates to debut in the 2000s. Obviously they don't have to elect all 8 who crossed 55, especially if they elect Posey and Yadi but the upcoming ballots are quite weak.

Pitchers, >=55 WAR, by decade of debut

1960s 12 (9)
1970s 5 (2 including Eck)
1980s 10 (4 + Clemens, Schilling)
1990s 6 (4 including Mo)
2000s 7 (I think at least 4, maybe CC)

Not sure why I missed CC in my list of upcoming candidates in #14.

Ortiz as the "obvious guys."

Papi has several huge "stinks" - but figures to sail in anyway.

the PR Executives HOF should enshrine Papi's entire crew before the HOF elects him. they did the heavy lifting.

:)

If I were in charge of moving the HoF, I'd put it in Kansas City, right next to the Negro League museum.

Hoboken

Obligatory.

Actually, in one of my OOTP alternate universes, the "Shrine of the Eternals" (which is actually a real thing in OTL) is located in Hoboken. The Temple Cup Finals were actually held there for a few years, for reasons too ridiculous to get into.

Well, if you really want to read it...

I was worried that Beltran would be hurt by the cheating scandal but i think he will go on. It may take a bit longer but I don’t think so many will holding against him that they NEVER vote for him, but they could delay him.

Votto looks like an easy vote now. Helps to finish strong

The Pitchers never seem to retire. Verlander, greinke, Lester, wainwright, hamels. Scherzer looks like he is years away from retiring. I’m half expecting to see Colon again.

Does Bartolo have a shot ? 247 wins in this day and age says yes

I think the BBHOF's best attribute is its current location, Cooperstown. Going there is like a pilgrimage, which is consistent with baseball's advantages over the other major American sports. Baseball is the best sport for its length, depth, richness, and understandability of its history. For example, football's numbers are so different between the 1930s vs 1970s vs 2010s that it makes looking at the records difficult for most casual fans (Look at QB numbers - it is a completely different sport).

As someone who has visited Cooperstown many times, one of the best parts is the miles leading to getting there. You are sort of in the middle of nowhere for a while, occasionally rolling through cute little hamlets and towns, and then rolling through parts of NY that time left behind (NY Route 20, for example, got left behind when the Thruway was built, and there are towns that are basically ghost towns along the way between Syracuse and Cooperstown on Rt. 20). But as you get close, the signs of the HOF start appearing, which builds anticipation. Then, you roll into town, and it is a very, very pretty town.

Going on Induction Weekend, it is just a massive celebration of baseball, and of the teams with whom the players being inducted that weekend are most closely associated. But it is also worth going on a slow weekend for the HOF. It is so quiet to go in, like, early May - you can get a B&B, stroll around town for a day or two with no crowds, if the weather is good you can play some golf or go on the lake, enjoy the Ommegang Brewery - it is a very nice weekend. And the town is all yours, as is the museum. If you put the HOF in a bigger city, it would just get lost as one of the touristy things to do while you are there. To some extent, I would say the Negro League Museum suffers from that dynamic a bit in Kansas City. There is more to do in KC than you might think (the World War I Museum, the Truman Presidential Library, the Plaza downtown, a lot of awesome steak & BBQ restaurants, etc.). If the Negro League Museum were really pumped up and expanded, and put somewhere where it was (like Cooperstown) the place to visit, I could see it developing into a "go to" location that would serve as a "mecca" destination for American sports history. Anyway, I think Cooperstown has that dynamic for baseball as it stands, and moving it out would remove the HOF's greatest asset.

Votto looks like an easy vote now

Well, he's over 2K hits and 300 HR now, but those are hardly slam-dunk numbers. Yes, the 63 WAR is adequate (for HOFers) and the 148 OPS+ is nice, but I think Votto's just one of those guys about which voters think, "Well, gee, Joey, we just never thought of you as a Hall of Famer"...

If the Negro League Museum were really pumped up and expanded, and put somewhere where it was the place to visit

Bud Fowler was the first great black baseball player...why not put the NLM in the town where he first learned to play baseball? Perfect!

He’s got a nice 7-8 year peak, he’s going to finish with all his JAWS scores above average for 1B, one team for his whole career, liked by the press for his cerebral approach to baseball. And his counting stats will inch up a bit farther over the next 2-3 years so that they aren’t borderline anymore (2300 hits and 350 HRs maybe). Just missing post-season heroics

I think Votto's bounceback season, with the easy hook of the home run streak, reminded a lot of people just how great he was in his prime and probably puts him over the top. He's led the league in OBP seven times, and as time goes on, that's only going to become more important in the HoF voter's mind.

but I think Votto's just one of those guys about which voters think, "Well, gee, Joey, we just never thought of you as a Hall of Famer"...

As far as looking at what the voters thought of Votto at the time, his MVP votes are instructive. He's got one win, one close second to Giancarlo Stanton, one third, and three other top-10 finishes. His 3.06 MVP shares puts him at 34th. That's not slam dunk territory but it's much better than someone like Larry Walker, who even with one MVP did have to fight that perception in his early years on the ballot.

Cincinnati actually has a good argument for the Baseball Hall of Fame as the birthplace of professional baseball. It would be fun if you could hit the R&R, Football and Baseball Halls of Fame in one road trip.

Scherzer looks like he is years away from retiring.

But when they go, sometimes they go fast. Verlander was at the top of his game, then misses 2 years to TJS. He might make it back next year. Halladay was at the top of his game in 2011, but just had 2 bad partial seasons left.

Votto has more war than Vlad Guerrero, who led the league in basically nothing (CS, maybe RBI and or runs scored) and Vlad sailed in. It might take a few years,but Votto will make it in. Plus, Votto Still Bangs.

Votto has more war than Vlad Guerrero, who led the league in basically nothing (CS, maybe RBI and or runs scored) and Vlad sailed in. It might take a few years,but Votto will make it in. Plus, Votto Still Bangs.

I do think Votto will have a better career than Vlad, but getting back to the hall of fame vs. merit argument, Vlad had more flare and panache. Writers wanted to like him and support him, with much of his career in oh so cosmopolitan Montreal, and then in the epicenter of the entertainment universe. Votto is just a dude in a midwestern city.

Votto is a very popular dude in a midwestern city, though, with a quirky, lovable personality. Also, like Vlad, he has an MVP, which helps differentiate them from the Lance Berkmans of the world.

I think Votto's just one of those guys about which voters think, "Well, gee, Joey, we just never thought of you as a Hall of Famer"...

Votto is a career .303/.417/.520 hitter over 15 seasons. Is there anyone with a .300/.400/.500 slash line over that length of time that didn’t make the Hall? That ought to be good enough, IMHO.

Helton's at .316/.414/.539, although he has the Coors bugaboo to deal with.

Re: Votto - I disagree with the post that said he never felt like a HOFer. In fact, I think he's the exact opposite; someone who often did well in MVP voting so he "felt" pretty HOFey*, but when you look at his career numbers he's not as much of a no brainer as you would've guessed. Barely over 2000 hits, 300 HR, and 1000 rbi are pretty "meh" for a 1B, and I doubt he maintains his lifetime .300 avg either (he's already dropped 10 pts in the last 4 seasons). His SABR numbers - while very good - aren't quite in the "no doubt" territory either. That said, I'd vote for Votto and I suspect the actual voters will too. He's a pretty similar player to Edgar Martinez, only with an MVP and no DH stigma. He'll also face a more SABR friendly electorate, and a less crowded ballot (I was all aboard the Edgar for the Hall train from the beginning, but even I wouldn't have been able to fit Martinez into my top 10 on some of those ballots).

* Freddie Freeman and Paul Goldschmidt sorta fit this bill too. They were/are big stars and did well in MVP voting so they "feel" like HOFers, but their projected career totals don't look like anything special for a 1B. Basically Fred McGriff with 100 fewer HR and 200 fewer rbi.

I think freeman is a dark horse MVP candidate this year btw. That would really change his HOF profile.

Votto has that whole "never pops out" schtick going for him too so he has that quirky narrative that writers like so much. With that, his walks, and all the times leading in OBP, he has a kinda bat control niche and the writers, especially in an era of mad K's, love having something so easy to dovetail into a story.

Votto's pretty darn close to a lock, I think, particularly with the weaker ballots he'll be on.

Vlad isn't a very good comp, because Vlad got in largely because he was the Vladdiest player of his generation.

I don't know how anyone can be certain about Ortiz's fate. People said the same thing about Pettitte sailing in despite the PED history (in fact, stiggles was still saying it already happened), and he's gone nowhere. Papi's roid story is more Sammy's than McGwire's, but that obviously hasn't helped Sammy.

(Votto)'s led the league in OBP seven times

Which is great, but OBP is probably the least impressive statistic in fan's (and voter's) minds. (You might as well be talking about Les Nessman's multiple Silver Sow awards...)

We’ll be right back with more music and less Nessman

Helton's at .316/.414/.539, although he has the Coors bugaboo to deal with.

Exactly. Road slash line: .287/.386/.469. Having said that, he deserves to be elected.

Votto has two more years on his contract. By the end of 2023 he'll be 40 years old and probably done.

While I certainly think he deserves to be elected, it would help him to finish strong. If he plays at the level of 2018 and 2021, he ends up with about 70 WAR and keeps a .300 career BA, he shouldn't have any problem. If he plays at the level of 2019 and 2020 in the next two years, he could struggle with the BBWAA.

It will help Votto if he can avoid sharing his first ballot with either Pujols or Miggy, might set him back 2-3 years otherwise. But if he stays healthy the next couple of years, he'll reach 9000 PAs and, with nobody else to vote for, he'll have a reasonably easy time of it. Bagwell is sort of the obvious comp with nearly all of the difference down to playing time (important but Votto will close some ground) and baserunning (not important for a 1B). I was worried about him a few years ago but I was expecting an ugly end ... this year suggests it won't be too bad, maybe even good.

Who ever said Pettitte would sail in? Questioned whether PEDs would hurt his vote total, sure ... he's done a bit worse than I expected so maybe it has. But other than wins, Pettitte doesn't have any HoF numbers, little CYA love, not even many AS games. I don't recall ever being too worried he'd make it easily, maybe as a 10th ballot guy, probably in good stead with a VC. His main advantage is that, once Schilling's gone, he'll have a couple of years as the "best" pitcher on the ballot and he wants to use that to stay ahead when CC hits the ballot in 2025 -- their basic numbers are virtually identical.

Just for giggles, I glanced at Votto's BB-ref page. Not a single one of his comps his a HOF-er, which was quite surprising.

Just for giggles, I glanced at Votto's BB-ref page. Not a single one of his comps his a HOF-er, which was quite surprising.

Which is great, but OBP is probably the least impressive statistic in fan's (and voter's) minds.

We need a dynamic verb for OBP.

Player *hit* .300.
Player *slugged* .500.

Player... onbased? .400.

Sort of like when Bill James tried to replace "outfield assists" with "baserunner kills".

Sort of like when Bill James tried to replace "outfield assists" with "baserunner kills".

"snipes" is both more concise and more offensive (maybe) - surprised Bill didn't 'go there'

#43 - That is surprising, since again, I always thought of Votto as being pretty similar to Edgar (and their numbers don't even account for the sticking with one smaller market team for their entire careers similarity). Votto shows up on Edgar's list of most similar players, but not vice versa (they also share 4 other comps in their top 10 lists).

EM/JV:

PA - 8674/7998
H - 2247/2005
HR - 309/323
RBI - 1261/1047
BB - 1283/1269
AVG - .312/.303
OBP - .418/.417
SLG - .515/.520
OPS+ - 147/148
WAR - 68.4/63.3
WAA - 38.5/39.0

Edgar still has a bit over one seasons worth of extra plate appearances, but Votto should catch or surpass that before he retires and close Edgar's lead in hits and rbi's. He'll also distance himself a bit on homers, since he developed power earlier in his career (their seasonal HR numbers were pretty similar once Edgar moved to DH).

Well, the sim scores date to a pre-saber era really. They don't adjust for park or context. They are proably still generally useful for giving us some idea how a traditional voter might vote. Otherwise you used to be able to look at a table with all the comps in it but now the "C" link only takes you to a useless stathead page (and I'm a subscriber). The old rule of thumb as I recall was that a comp needed a score of 900 or higher to be a good comp and only Brian Giles barely scrapes over 900 for Vott's comps.

In short, he's a pretty unique player. There are a number of reasons it's hard to find good comps. He got a relatively late start for such an excellent hitter. Most any hitter of this quality will be well above 8000 PA by age 37. I mentioned Bagwell and 37 was his last year by which point he had over 9400 PA.** Most of the players on Votto's list are other late starters -- while a guy like Mookie is only about 3700 PA behind but is 9-years younger. If his career ended today, probably the most Votto-like hitter (just hitter) in the HoF is Walker.

Sim scores drop based on differences in games played, at-bats (not PAs), hits and walks. Using games played and at-bats is double-counting differences in PT (through a certain age particularly) then, to the extent one player walks a lot and the other doesn't, that almost gets triple-counted by increasing the gap in AB/game, hits and walks.

** Bagwell only started one year younger than Votto but it was a full season. He also picked up a lot of PAs at age 36 (covid) and generally a few every year even thought Votto is also very durable. Between the end of this year and the 2 years left on his contract, Votto should be close to Bagwell's PA total by the time he retires.

To me it feels like a narrative is starting to swirl around Votto's feet. I try to listen to as many team broadcasts as I can on MLB.TV and he's getting a lot of, "Well...he may not hit too many old-school 'magic numbers,' but he's GOTTA go in" from other teams' announcers.

I don't think Votto is even a debate, he has it obviously in my opinion, he has good traditional stat lines (not as much power as you want out of a first baseman, but still more than enough.) Weak contemporaries, yes he's going to look bad compared to Pujols (who doesn't) and even Cabrera, but in comparison to guys that we'll be seeing on the ballot without roid stink, he looks very good.

I think the Is Votto a hof discussion is just that a discussion to make the point that he is a hofer.

And as others have mentioned, he does have the vlad gimmick of being just a weird and memorable enough dude that the non-stat voters will like him, in spite of his lack of traditional numbers.

Going forward you have to assume an influx of catchers, Posey, Mauer, Molina are pretty much locks, add in the discussion for Perez, Martin and you'll have a bunch of pushes for Munson, Kendall, Freehan, Posada and maybe others on the veteran's side... by 2040, I think pretty much every name I listed except Martin and maybe Kendall is in.

In some of the same way, I think there will be an influx of thirdbaseman, Rolen is going to get in, Beltre even more so. Arod not so likely of course, but Dick Allen will go in and there will be an additional looking at other names, maybe not as many veterans as catchers, but Ken Boyer is just sitting out there waiting to go in, And then we have the young studs currently playing, obviously not every one of them goes in, but among that group, you expect a few to age well enough that 60 war is possible, and that is really the standard for third.


I do not think that Beltran will suffer at all from the scandal. It's pretty clear that the only 'cheating' that hurts your hof chances is by exercising and taking drugs that help make you better physically. All other forms of cheating is applauded.



Edit: just for the record "not enough power out of a first baseman" is probably what has kept Keith Hernandez out of the hall all this time also... I think he's in the hall by 2040.

Who ever said Pettitte would sail in? Questioned whether PEDs would hurt his vote total, sure ... he's done a bit worse than I expected so maybe it has.

Before he retired, Pettitte occupied the Ortiz role with many Primates, the guy for whom the press would ignore his PED past when it came to the Hall. That seemed to fizzle out a little by the time he actually hit the ballot, but it was pretty common idea that he would get a pass from the scribes.

Now, it's Ortiz who occupies that space. And I find the certainty that people here have about his Hall candidacy to be pretty baffling. Sure, it's possible that his appearance on the same list as Sammy will be overlooked*, but I don't see what that confidence is based on.

* He does have the advantage that his appearance on the list came before his entire noteworthy career, but Pettitte also had a lot of time to put distance between his admission and the end of his run, and it's hard to see how he's gotten much of a pass.

This article started out good, but then it just didn't want to dive into everything.
I mean it talks about the number of players the BBWAA puts in a year, but then doesn't try to list to many names over the next even 10 years, if you think they put in 3 names a year, over the next 10 years, you should be able to guess roughly 20 of those 30 names.

Same with the veteran's... if they put in 2 per year, over the next 18 years you should be able to guess about 10 of them. If we are talking there will be 33 more players from the writers between now and 2040, give me at least a reasonable guess at 20 of the names, pretty much a guarantee that every name on the list is currently playing, and almost (if not)all of them are at least 3 years into their career.

Add in the veteran's picks which the article put at 2.16 per year, or 41 names, and since pretty much all of them are currently retired or about to retire (and will not get the love from the bbwaa as a prediction) give me 20-30 of those names... Dick Allen is obvious, but what about Boyer? Or even more interesting, what about Bobby Abreu or Chase Utley? Hernandez? etc... go out on a limb and make some predictions.

Players who will be in the hof in 2040 by the bbwaa (barring a scandal) (no order, just as I remember them)
1. Pujols, 2. Kershaw 3. Molina 4. Votto 5. Greinke 6. Posey 7. Cabrera 8. Trout 9. Beltre 10. Mauer 11. Rolen 12. Helton 13. Ortiz 14. Beltran 15. Ichiro 16. Sabathia 17. Betts 18. Machado 19. Harper... I wanted to come up with 20 but when Altuve/Correa/Freeman/Arenado became the best guess, I had to stop. It's not that I don't think they are capable, but I don't have the certainty with them as I do with the others.... and I'm sure I'm missing some recently retired guy or somebody.

As far as veteran's are concerned, I do think that the vet's committee will absolutely put in
1. Dick Allen.... after that... who knows... and I would have to do some heavy research, I think many of the stat darlings like Dahlen will get in, and it's possible that Hodges finally gets in, I'm fairly certain that Hernandez gets in, and I think a few snubs of the bbwaa will get in... most notably if Vizquel doesn't, and maybe even Utley (who I do not think the bbwaa will put in) and if they put in Schilling or Bonds or Sosa, that will start an entire race.

Ortiz is one of the best pure narrative candidates out there. Very memorable player for very memorable teams, always seemed to come up big in the big moment. Red Sox vs Yankees was huge in his era, and he played a big role in that.

There's going to be a lot of goodwill when he comes onto the ballot. If he's not actively excluded from the ballot, he's probably in.

"Goodwill" is a vague term, but I think that most people are very resistant to take someone off their mental list of hall of famers.

And lots of people spent years looking at David Ortiz and thinking "Now there's a Hall of Famer!"

I've bagged on Ortiz and whether he was worthy, I literally gave a list of things he would have to do to pass the line in my eyes statistically, and he literally did exactly that. I'm a non-roid guy (meaning I don't care one bit about roids) so he reached my line, he adds in narrative galore and he's just a guy people like.

I understand the point of 50 as I was one of the guys who argued that Pettitte will do better than other roid candidates. Not that he would sail in, but that he would do well in comparison to other ped guys. Pettitte wasn't a lock by any means, I think Ortiz is a better candidate, both because he has a stronger case across the spectrum of voters and his roid issue is very minor. And of course the culling of the oldey fogeys who hold that against a player.

Just for giggles, I glanced at Votto's BB-ref page. Not a single one of his comps his a HOF-er, which was quite surprising

The comps on that site are goofy

There's going to be a lot of goodwill when he comes onto the ballot. If he's not actively excluded from the ballot, he's probably in.

But why wouldn't we think that the same guys who won't vote for Bonds and Clemens and Sosa won't vote for Ortiz, particularly since the case against him is the exact same as the one against Sosa. Or, hell, the folks who vote for Bonds and Clemens won't withhold votes for him on the idea that he shouldn't get in when vastly superior players didn't?

I would vote for him, because I would also have voted for all of the pre-testing PED guys. And certainly everyone who does vote for the PED guys can vote for him with a clear conscience. But that isn't 75 percent.

Is it possible the BBWAA ushers him in despite Papi having the same level of steroid guilt that kept Sosa out? Of course, the BBWAA applying its own standards inconsistently wouldn't exactly be a first. The point is, I don't know why so many people here are convinced it will happen. I just don't get the conviction.

Ortiz was a beloved star who won a WS MVP. But Bonds and Arod each won league MVP awards after getting accused, and Arod was a World Series MVP after admitting to previous usage. It didn't help Bonds come Hall time, and I doubt Arod is going to have better luck.

But why wouldn't we think that the same guys who won't vote for Bonds and Clemens and Sosa won't vote for Ortiz, particularly since the case against him is the exact same as the one against Sosa. Or, hell, the folks who vote for Bonds and Clemens won't withhold votes for him on the idea that he shouldn't get in when vastly superior players didn't?

Because I don't think the perception is the same, regardless of the reality of the situation, I would put Ortiz more in the same camp as Bagwell or Piazza for suspected use from the writers than Sosa. The writers "know" Sosa used, they didn't need evidence to know this. With Ortiz he never really put up the gaudy homerun totals even though his job was to be a primary hitter, in fact he profiles as Willie McCovey or someone like that, not a guy having historical out of the norm (other than aging pattern) numbers.

@51 Let's give it a shot

BBWAA vote ins:

Pujols, Trout, Verlander, Greinke, Beltre, Rolen, Cabrera, Scherzer, Jones, Sabathia, Suzuki, Beltran, Votto, Utley, Ortiz, Mauer, Helton, Longoria, Posey, Molina, Kimbrel, Jansen, A. Chapman, Harper, Betts, Goldschmidt, Sale, Machado, Degrom, Arenado, Altuve, Freeman, Yelich, Correa, Rendon, J. Ramirez, Cole, Lindor, Springer, Stanton, Bryant, Bogaerts, Salvy Perez, Story, Judge, Nola, M. Chapman, T. Turner, Realmuto, Bregman, Bieber, Buehler, Castillo, Hader, Moncada

There's 60 names, most of the expected 40 should come from this group.

Who knows with the Era Committees, they never seem to make much sense

But why wouldn't we think that the same guys who won't vote for Bonds and Clemens and Sosa won't vote for Ortiz

I think it's as simple as Ortiz is much more likable.

I think it's as simple as Ortiz is much more likable.

And they liked Bonds and Clemens less than any of the other steroids candidates, but they've gotten the most votes among the PED connected.

One thing about Hall voting is they don't tend to hold poor relationships with players against them, nor overvalue guys they like. Carlton and Murray went in first ballot. Rice didn't deserve it and he snuck in. And Morris was undeserved and he almost got in through the BBWAA. Likewise, well-liked guys such as Mattingly and Murphy and Hershiser, equally as qualified as Jim Ed and The Jack, failed to gain any traction.

Without any kind of steroid link, I think he goes in within a few ballots. I just can't see how everyone can be so certain given he does have a steroid link (shaky as it is, though identical to Sammy), even if it was long ago and before he became Big Papi.

there's an old saying that a squirrel is just a rat with a good public-relations team behind it.

Ortiz will sail in, logic be damned.

Ortiz will sail in, logic be damned.

We'll see. I wouldn't rule it out, but the certainty is misplaced.

Ortiz got a warm farewell tour in his last season. Bonds got booed as he chased probably the most hallowed record in the game. I know that none of that was the writers' doing, but I think that it's an accurate depiction of how the two are viewed, and that probably does affect what the voters will do.

Also, wasn't Ortiz's PED link explicitly downplayed by MLB? Without that, his link to steroids is weaker than Ivan Rodriguez's, and Texas Pudge didn't have any issues getting elected.

that probably does affect what the voters will do.

As noted, it hasn't really been a factor before.

Ortiz will sail in, logic be damned

500+ homers and buckets of fame -- it is the hall of FAME, after all. He is a lock, 2 ballots max.

Ortiz will sail in, logic be damned

500+ homers and buckets of fame -- it is the hall of FAME, after all. He is a lock, 2 ballots max.

In an ideal world, I would expect to see in the wake of his election a re-evaluation of all of the other roid snubbees (tho most by that point will have to rely on the VC's). In an ideal world.

Without any kind of steroid link, I think he goes in within a few ballots. I just can't see how everyone can be so certain given he does have a steroid link (shaky as it is, though identical to Sammy), even if it was long ago and before he became Big Papi.

I think that maybe, as a Red Sox fan, you might be bending over backwards to discount your own position on the matter to try to see it from a neutral standpoint. But let me assure you, David Ortiz is beloved throughout baseball, not just in Boston. When people think about him off the field, they're much more likely to think about "This is our f***ing city" than they are about steroids.

I also think that there's a difference between people like McGwire and Bonds, who came on the ballot when steroids were still one of the dominant topic of conversation around baseball, and Ortiz, who will be voted on long after everyone got sick of that conversation.

A-Rod and Manny were suspended for cheating. Screw 'em.

Ortiz, Bonds, McGwire, Clemens, Sosa were not. They should all be HOF'ers IMHO.

I hate the F#####g Sawx- but Big Papi should be a first ballot HOF'er

Sosa was suspended for cheating

https://calltothepen.com/2016/06/06/chicago-cubs-sammy-sosa-suspended-for-corked-bat/

The corked bat thing seemed like a stand in for steroids in terms of people's response, though.

Like there was this undercurrent of people uneasy with Sosa being cast as the savior of baseball and ready to jump off the bandwagon.

If, say, Yadier Molina had a bat explode and superballs come flying out next week, you'd probably see some tut-tutting and explanations of how hard guys work to hang on at the end of their careers. I doubt there'd be the same flurry of condemnation.

We'll see. I wouldn't rule it out, but the certainty is misplaced.

I would be legitimately stunned if Ortiz isn't elected.

If, say, Yadier Molina had a bat explode and superballs come flying out next week, you'd probably see some tut-tutting and explanations of how hard guys work to hang on at the end of their careers. I doubt there'd be the same flurry of condemnation

What, you mean like the non-story of the ball that stuck to Molina's chest protector because he had so much sticky #### there?

Before he retired, Pettitte occupied the Ortiz role with many Primates, the guy for whom the press would ignore his PED past when it came to the Hall. That seemed to fizzle out a little by the time he actually hit the ballot, but it was pretty common idea that he would get a pass from the scribes.

This agrees with my memory too but that's not the same thing as people saying he would be elected. Pettitte didn't have HoF numbers, didn't have a HoF rep. He never won a CYA, only 3 AS teams. The voters have arguably ignored his connection to roids and given him the solid but unspectacular vote totals he deserves. He's the Lou Whitaker of pitchers -- always good, never great -- except without the sort of massive compiler numbers we expect out of the Don Suttons of the world. Pettitte not only needed to avoid roid stink, he needed extra narrative points around wins, rings, postseason totals, etc. to get elected.

The question at this point is whether he'll start building momentum as a backlogger on weak ballots.

As to Ortiz: yes, MLB and MLBPA at the time went out of their way to strongly suggest Ortiz was a false positive. The roid stink pretty much never stuck to him and certainly any traces of it were gone long before he retired. He was widely beloved by fans, writers and other players and pretty much all of that came after the roid test. If there's any relevant "anti-Ortiz" constituency out there, they've yet to make themselves known.

Like CFB, when the Ortiz for HoF chatter first started (around 2013 I'd guess), my response was along the lines of "oh c'mon, he'll have to remain healthy and productive through 40 with virtually no drop off and even then ...." Well, he certainly did the first bit. And >500 HRs, >600 doubles, over 1750 RBI, a 141 OPS+ in 10,000 PAs ... that's a lot for even the most saber-y guy to ignore. I considered Edgar to be borderline and I consider Ortiz to be worse than Edgar (though it's pretty close) so I wouldn't vote for him. But 15-yo me is telling me I'm a ####### moron. Add the fame and he's getting in comfortably.

only 3 AS teams

The modern All-Star Game roster is filled with relief pitchers. We need to stop holding that against starting pitchers. His 3 top 10 finishes in pitcher WAR are more relevant.

I think that maybe, as a Red Sox fan, you might be bending over backwards to discount your own position on the matter to try to see it from a neutral standpoint. But let me assure you, David Ortiz is beloved throughout baseball, not just in Boston. When people think about him off the field, they're much more likely to think about "This is our f***ing city" than they are about steroids.

Could be, but I don't think so.

Here are four things working against him:

The PED evidence against Sammy Sosa, evidence which kept a more obvious Hall of Famer from ever exceeding 15 percent, is the same as it is against Ortiz. Some people may ignore that, but most of them? Surely, there will be voters who remember that and vote consistently.

As loved as he is, and I don't disagree that he is, that's never really been much of a factor from the BBWAA at Hall time. Hated guys have done well by the BBWAA and beloved guys haven't. There's simply no evidence that popularity has been much of a benefit, at least since I've been following the sport.

The "steroid stink didn't stick to him" was previously applied to Pettitte, and he's gone virtually nowhere in three elections (and, unlike you Walt, I think a 60 bWAR, 68 fWAR pitcher with an extra supersized Andy Pettitte season in the playoffs is a perfectly respectable Hall of Fame candidate. He's like Jack Morris, except much, much better.

He's borderline on a pure merit basis. It took Edgar 10 seasons, and Edgar was a bit better.

Working for him:
He was a big star. No question. He gets a shitton of narrative points.

His entire Hall resume was built after his reported appearance on the list. That gave him an opportunity to shift the narrative in a way that wasn't available to most of the PED guys.

Unknowns

How do the staunch Barry/Roger voters respond to him? Do they balk at supporting a guy who was inferior to them, or do they vote for him in hopes it will make it easier to get the inner circle guys get in through the Vets committee.

So, I'll say it again. Is it possible 75 percent of the BBWAA will ignore the first four and act on the second two? Sure, it is the BBWAA after all. But I just don't see how y'all can be so convinced.

He's like Jack Morris, except much, much better.

that's at least 2 too many "much"-es

Pettitte's vote totals are about where I expected him to be, with or without lying, twice, about taking PEDs. I have never seen a ballot that ever mentioned leaving off Pettitte for that reason, and suspect there are precious few out there.

I've never been much into the whole PED thing, and I'm saying that Ortiz sails in. some will love it, some will hate it.
same will go for Molina's sail-in as well.

as I think I noted in that thread, at this point resistance is futile.

I’m surprised at how many people think big papi will sail in. Rodriguez is about to hit the ballot and all those issues will come up again and just like with bonds and Clemens, people will be hard pressed to vote for a lesser-roider while keeping out the better roider. Put another way, which of the voters who won’t vote for a-rod will vote for big papi?

The answer to that question may be “a-rod’s roids issues are far more egregious”. I haven’t seen much evidence that the anti-roids folks discriminate in that way. I think big papis hope is that over 5-10 years so many of the anti-roiders retire or quit submitting ballots and are replaced with lots of sabr-inclined who don’t give a #### about steroids. It’s already happening and may accelerate.

Pettitte's vote totals are about where I expected him to be, with or without lying, twice, about taking PEDs. I have never seen a ballot that ever mentioned leaving off Pettitte for that reason, and suspect there are precious few out there.

Fine, since we're looking for this, how many writers who have said they will be voting for Ortiz? I suspect precious few.

but how many writers proclaim their future vote months or years in advance?

but how many writers proclaim their future vote months or years in advance?

Which somehow doesn't affect your certainty of what they're going to do.

I have a respectable track record on these fronts, for some reason.

I have a respectable track record on these fronts, for some reason.

Feel free to ask around for my track record on Hall predictions.

The PED evidence against Sammy Sosa, evidence which kept a more obvious Hall of Famer from ever exceeding 15 percent, is the same as it is against Ortiz. Some people may ignore that, but most of them? Surely, there will be voters who remember that and vote consistently.

Is Sosa's case really all that different than Ortiz's? Ortiz was a better hitter, for longer, than Sosa, and Sosa's bat didn't take off until after he declined as a fielder. Both are one-dimensional players with huge narrative bonus's, that otherwise fall below the overall standard for the HoF.

. The PED evidence against Sammy Sosa, evidence which kept a more obvious Hall of Famer from ever exceeding 15 percent, is the same as it is against Ortiz.

I’m not sure this is true from the voters’ perspective. Sosa went from being a slender base-stealer to looking like a wrestler. Ortiz just looked like a big fat guy.

The PED evidence against Sammy Sosa, evidence which kept a more obvious Hall of Famer from ever exceeding 15 percent, is the same as it is against Ortiz. Some people may ignore that, but most of them? Surely, there will be voters who remember that and vote consistently.

I don't think most voters have PEDs consistency along these lines. Sosa went from a skinny speedster to a hulking slugger in a few years. Ortiz was always a big guy. The physical transformation of guys like Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa - plus their breaking of hallowed records (which Ortiz obviously did not do) - are what I believe drive most of the anti-PEDs HOF vote. [edit: what 84 said]

As loved as he is, and I don't disagree that he is, that's never really been much of a factor from the BBWAA at Hall time. Hated guys have done well by the BBWAA and beloved guys haven't. There's simply no evidence that popularity has been much of a benefit, at least since I've been following the sport.

You're definitely not wrong. Dale Murphy is a nice guy with a borderline peak case who didn't get close. I dunno. I just have a strong feeling that charismatic nice guy + clutch winner is going to carry Ortiz much further than his stats.

Is Sosa's case really all that different than Ortiz's? Ortiz was a better hitter, for longer, than Sosa, and Sosa's bat didn't take off until after he declined as a fielder.

With what voters historically liked, Sosa would have been a better candidate - 600 homers, an MVP, involvement in the all-time chase, not a DH. Absent PEDs, Sammy would have gotten in before ballot mate Biggio.

On a pure merit basis, it is much closer.

I don't think most voters have PEDs consistency along these lines. Sosa went from a skinny speedster to a hulking slugger in a few years. Ortiz was always a big guy. The physical transformation of guys like Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa - plus their breaking of hallowed records (which Ortiz obviously did not do) - are what I believe drive most of the anti-PEDs HOF vote. [edit: what 84 said]

I'm not denying there is inconsistency. But 75 percent is a high bar to clear. It requires an awfully high percentage of the Sammy no votes to vote for a guy with the same evidence.

But some number of voters likely do not regard the evidence as the same.

But some number of voters likely do not regard the evidence as the same.

Sure, there are probably some of them.

I don't think most voters consider the source of the "evidence" when deciding whether a player is steroid case or not. For many voters, the evidence that Sosa was a roider inheres in the fact that he hit 66 homers in a season. (No player who has hit more than 60 homers in a season has ever been elected to the Hall of Fame.) The fact that he was once included on a list of players who used PEDs has very little to do with his vote totals, IMO.

Without getting into the PED argument, Ortiz always seemed to me to have a more valuable career than Sosa, because his peak lasted much longer.

Number of seasons with OPS+ of 140 or more:

Ortiz 11
Sosa 5

Throw in Papi's postseason performances, and I don't see it's all that close.

I don't think most voters consider the source of the "evidence" when deciding whether a player is steroid case or not. For many voters, the evidence that Sosa was a roider inheres in the fact that he hit 66 homers in a season. (No player who has hit more than 60 homers in a season has ever been elected to the Hall of Fame.)

I realize the iconic nature of the 60 mark, but do you think getting from 56 to 61 in 1996 or 1997 would've kept out Ken Griffey Jr.? And if Giancarlo Stanton stays injury free and can return to his "normal" numbers up for another 5 or 6 years, do you think the fact that he stopped at 59 in his best year would keep him out of Cooperstown?

Ortiz always seemed to me to have a more valuable career than Sosa, because his peak lasted much longer.

Number of seasons with OPS+ of 140 or more:

Ortiz 11
Sosa 5

Throw in Papi's postseason performances, and I don't see it's all that close.

It's close because Sosa put up some very good defensive numbers prior to his bat exploding. 11 2+ WAR seasons to Ortiz's 12. I still think Ortiz has a better case, primarily because I think the DH penalty is too big, but these are two players that really, really belong in the HoF moreso due to narrative (and you can add McGwire to that list).

I don't think most voters consider the source of the "evidence" when deciding whether a player is steroid case or not.

We'll see. I don't think any of us really know how the voters think* on the subject, which is why I don't think anyone can be certain what his fate will be.

* Recognizing, of course, that there's no single way of thinking on the subject.

I'm not a Sawx fan but I'm definitely in the camp that believes Papi will sail in; it's the narrative, baby. As others have noted, Sosa looked like a roider (to those for whom that's a deal-breaker), but Papi just looked like a big fat guy who, if he ever took any drugs, forgot about the whole "working out lots more to build those muscles" thing. Might as well have been taking placebos!

And as that great old-time scribe Bill Shakespeare said, Inconsistency, thy name is BBWAA!

Me and Sosh have been going round and round on this for years. In a few different ways. I've opposed Papi as a hofer as I just didn't think his numbers were good enough, eventually I came around and he's basically Larry Walker when you break everything down. Walker is literally the guy I list as definitive borderline... but maybe over?

The thing is that I still think Papi has a better and quicker route to the hof than Larry, even with the negatives. And unlike Rice or Morris(or for those pushing my Cardinal bias, Sutter who absolutely doesn't belong) .... I'm not going to object nearly as much when he reaches it.

Sosh is arguing that Papi's hof vote will be hurt by his roids, which is absolutely true... my argument is that it won't be enough voters that care about the factual evidence to stop his induction. You have a myriad (I love that word) group of voters, and there are absolutely a small group who is holding their votes for "proven" roiders that is putting Sosa and Papi in the same camp.... I don't think that group is large enough to stop someone from getting in. The people not voting for Sosa are the people who "know" he used, same with Bonds or Clemens. And of course the changing electorate makes it much harder to predict.

Is Sosa's case really all that different than Ortiz's? Ortiz was a better hitter, for longer, than Sosa, and Sosa's bat didn't take off until after he declined as a fielder. Both are one-dimensional players with huge narrative bonus's, that otherwise fall below the overall standard for the HoF.

Sosa was good enough to play the field for most of his career. Not so for Ortiz. The Red Sox were willing to endure Manny Ramirez in the outfield because Ortiz at 1st base was a worse option. Boston also passed on numerous opportunities to make Ortiz their regular 1st baseman, enduring the mediocrity of Kevin Millar and even shifting Kevin Youkilis from 3rd to cover the position. Ortiz may be a Hall of Famer as a DH, if one doesn’t overly penalize DHs, but dinging Sammy SOS’s defense isn’t an argument for Ortiz.

I don’t have any real problem with those casting a real or hypothetical large Hall, no-PED penalty, no-DH penalty vote for Ortiz, but doing so while excluding others on such grounds strikes me as rather ‘selective’ if not hypocritical.

Just my opinion here, but Ortiz the player lands shy of my personal in/out line. Figure There’s about 23 players per fielding position with DHes slotted into the position they played most often. I arrive at 23 this way:
264 players (MLBs + Negro Leaguers)
70/30 split between hitters and pitchers
0.7 * 70 / 8 ~ 23 players

At IB I have the following hierarchy of eligible players. Keep in mind that I’m using my own afjustments, including. -10 RAA per 600 PA segregation adjustment. These figures are through the 2020 season.
1) S Musial
2) A Pujols
3) L Gehrig
4) C Anson
5) J Bagwell
6) Foxx
7) R Connor
8) P Rose
9) D Brouthers
10) F Thomas
[J Votto]
11) T Helton
12) K Hernandez
13) J Thome
14) J Gibson
15) R Palmeiro
16) D Allen
[ M Cabrera]
17) W McCovey
18) J Mize
19) E Murray
20) B Leonard
21) M McGwire
22) J Olerud
23) W Clark
24) H Greenberg
25) L Berkman
[P Goldscmidt]
26) H Killebrew
27) B Terry
28) G Sisler
29) Ja Giambi
30) N Cash
31) T Pérez
33) F McGriff
34) D Ortiz
35) A Gonzalez
36) Mu Suttles
37) M Texeiera
38) C Delgado
39) O Cepeda
40) G Hodges

It’s just my list, of course, but I would say that among the top-20 on this list, it’s hard to argue that Ortiz is a better player. Olerud and Clark don’t have Ortiz’ hitting credentials, but both contributed a lot in the field that Ortiz could not. After that you get into a lot of arguments about defensive systems, peaks (Irtiz doesn’t have a great one according to WAR), and peak vs career. His case is not open and shut, but it’s not clear that, for me, that he could leapfrog all the guys between him and the theoretical in/out line I mentioned earlier. Just thought I would share a more analytical side of the difusión. He needs all the narrative he can get.