Mike & The Mikettes: 2014 HOF Ballot

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

So if Pizza gets hit with accusations because he played in a certain era and is assumed to be guilty, why are Maddux, Glavine, Jeter and others presumed to be not guilty?

It's not like Piazza had a sudden power surge or played at an insanely high level into his 40s. Seems like he was fairly consistent and started breaking down at an age when catchers typically break down.

[stevejrogers]

Ceetar wrote: I don't remember who it was, but there was definitely a writer that said they were holding off on Piazza to see if he admitted to anything in the book.

Would not be shocked if he listened too much to the Murray Chasses of the world. Chass pretty much declared that their MUST BE some sort of revelation in the book regarding Piazza being a PED user.

[stevejrogers]

metsguyinmichigan wrote: So if Pizza gets hit with accusations because he played in a certain era and is assumed to be guilty, why are Maddux, Glavine, Jeter and others presumed to be not guilty? It's not like Piazza had a sudden power surge or played at an insanely high level into his 40s. Seems like he was fairly consistent and started breaking down at an age when catchers typically break down.

Considering the treatment Bagwell and Biggio have gotten as well, I think the writers have answered that, and are throwing a wide blanket over the era.

It is possible that besides Glavine and Maddux, the writers could have justified their recent blanketing of the era by saying "no one was really "worthy" of being a First Ballot Hall of Famer until Maddux showed up."

Of course I'll keep going back to the idea that makes their stance silly is that;
A) how do they arbitrarily decide WHEN the era starts,
WHEN did it end (and as we are still seeing, I really don't think it HAS ended)
and C) how do they know for sure they haven't already inducted a PED user? And I'll go back to players who played in the mid-1970s for whispers and innuendo as opposed to contemporaries of Jose Canseco (though a big one I have in mind did play with Canseco).

[stevejrogers]

Results are starting to trickle in over at Baseball Think Factory's Ballot Collecting Gizmo.

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/

Obviously way too small of a sample size at the moment, but interesting that Tammy is being linked with Maddux in terms of an attempt to topple Seaver. Interesting because Tammy was clearly the Koosman to Seaver's Maddux (and I've seen people make cases that Jerry was a better overall pitcher than Tammy).

[Benjamin Grimm]

Tammy?

[MFS62]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Tammy?

I think he's saying that Debbie Reynolds didn't use steroids.

Later

[stevejrogers]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Tammy?

Glavine.

[MFS62]

A writer saying its time for the HOF to do something about steroids.
Some other interesting stuff, especially about Ted Williams.
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/12/26/time-for-a-hall-of-fame-stand/

Later

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

And Murray Chass continues to be an idiot.

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/12/26/murray-chass-thinks-craig-biggio-did-steroids/

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

metsguyinmichigan wrote: And Murray Chass continues to be an idiot. http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/12/26/murray-chass-thinks-craig-biggio-did-steroids/

On edit, I read his actual column, which is better than the small -- and awful -- part about the players he "suspects" but has no real proof. He's still an idiot.

But the interesting part is about the managers just elected to the hall, and how they owe their championships largely to roided players. Torre's list of users, in particular, is pretty long.

http://www.murraychass.com/?p=6984

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

Accidental double post...

[Edgy MD]

Dan Shaugnessy just made me weep at my desk.

[stevejrogers]

Edgy MD wrote: Dan Shaugnessy just made me weep at my desk.

I know "consider the source" but Wally Watthews always suspected Thomas with the "me thinks doth protest too much" line of thinking with how much The Big Hurt was anti-PEDs in public statements.

Then again Matthews suspected Piazza, Bagwell, Kent, and just about everyone to the point where he and his radio partner, Tom Keegan, once did a "lets do a "Real MVP" award" for each season during the 1990s and somehow Craig Biggio became a multiple time MVP!

But the point remains, how can you be so sure your eye test is correct with Piazza and Bagwell, but not with Thomas?

[Ceetar]

SteveJRogers wrote: But the point remains, how can you be so sure your eye test is correct with Piazza and Bagwell, but not with Thomas?

Or Maddux, or Glavine, or Schilling, or Jeter, or Mariano, or Mattingly, or Robbie Alomar or Ricky Henderson, or..

[stevejrogers]

Ceetar wrote: SteveJRogers wrote: Edgy MD wrote: But the point remains, how can you be so sure your eye test is correct with Piazza and Bagwell, but not with Thomas? Or Maddux, or Glavine, or Schilling, or Jeter, or Mariano, or Mattingly, or Robbie Alomar or Ricky Henderson, or..

Or Reggie Jackson, or Brian Downing, or Pete Rose, or Nolan Ryan, or Cal Ripken, or George Brett...

[Edgy MD]

The quoting tree has been somehow incorrectly pruned, and Steve's words are now in my mouf.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

Horrible. Absolutely horrible.

This is where we go off the rails. Like Thomas, guys such as Piazza and Bagwell have Hall of Fame numbers and never tested positive for PEDs. But they look dirty. Something doesn�t make sense. Thomas makes sense. This is where it gets unfair and subjective. I don�t vote for the PED guys, so it�s easy to say no to Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, McGwire, and Palmeiro. They have positive tests and/or admissions and/or multiple appearances in the Mitchell Report. Piazza and Bagwell have none of that. They just don�t look right. The rest of the list of players I reject are good old-fashioned baseball arguments. Biggio got 68.2 percent of the vote last year, but I don�t think of him as Hall-worthy (only one 200-hit season). Same for Mussina and his 270 wins (he always pitched for good teams) and Smith and his 478 saves (saves are overrated and often artificial). Not voting for Raines and Martinez also feels totally unfair. I just never thought of them as Hall of Famers. They fail the �I know it when I see it� test.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD (supposedly) wrote: The quoting tree has been somehow incorrectly pruned, and Steve's words are now in my mouf.

fixed. I never was a good tree pruner.

[batmagadanleadoff]

.... or Bud Harrelson.

I think that in the future, these steroid/PED shunnings will come to be seen as overreactions, witch-hunts. When we're able to manipulate our own DNA, and regenerate limbs and nerves and tissues with the same ease with which a dentist today can fill a cavity, this steroid issue is gonna seem real silly. I mean, Deion Sanders gets blessed with world class Olympian speed and a Greek God's physical frame and excels at the highest levels of two major sports. Another guy gets an accountant's body and before he can finish the third grade, already secretly knows that he'll never even start for his little league team. What's so fair about that? Nothing. It's all luck. Life is all luck. Mostly. Shaquille O' Neal is going into the Basketball Hall Of Fame, but if he didn't get the genes to grow like a giant .. if he was of average height .. his pure basketball skills wouldn't have gotten him onto the warm part of the bench on his High School team. You think that you'd be able to jump over a Volkswagen if only you'd eaten the same meals Bo Jackson did as a kid?

[Edgy MD]

I'm not sure I care that it's subjective. That's why they have a big voting pool. I just care that those subjective standards are consistently applied, and that baseball writers act like the reporters they're supposed to be and pursue actual facts to make their subjective opinions as informed as possible.

Anybody who makes his case on the know-it-when-I-see-it basis should be disqualified from any jobs as a persuasive writer.

As for the "only one 200-hit season" standard, you can disqualify any Hall-of-Famer if you pick one random criterion of excellence. Babe Ruth only had three 200-hit seasons. Rickey Henderson had zero.

Walter Johnson never got more than 42 hits in a year!

[batmagadanleadoff]

.... or Bud Harrelson. I think that in the future, these steroid/PED shunnings will come to be seen as overreactions, witch-hunts. When we're able to manipulate our own DNA, and regenerate limbs and nerves and tissues with the same ease with which a dentist today can fill a cavity, this steroid issue is gonna seem real silly. I mean, Deion Sanders gets blessed with world class Olympian speed and a Greek God's physical frame and excels at the highest levels of two major sports. Another guy gets an accountant's body and before he can finish the third grade, already secretly knows that he'll never even start for his little league team. What's so fair about that? Nothing. It's all luck. Life is all luck. Mostly. Shaquille O' Neal is going into the Basketball Hall Of Fame, but if he didn't get the genes to grow like a giant .. if he was of average height .. his pure basketball skills wouldn't have gotten him onto the warm part of the bench on his High School team. You think that you'd be able to jump over a Volkswagen if only you'd eaten the same meals Bo Jackson did as a kid?

OE: If Shaq was merely a six-footer, his pure basketball skills wouldn't have gotten him onto the warm part of the bench on his High School team.

[Edgy MD]

The shunning seems far too lazy to qualify as witch hunting.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

Edgy MD wrote: I'm not sure I care that it's subjective. That's why they have a big voting pool. I just care that those subjective standards are consistently applied, and that baseball writers act like the reporters they're supposed to be and pursue actual facts to make their subjective opinions as informed as possible. Anybody who makes his case on the know-it-when-I-see-it basis should be disqualified from any jobs as a persuasive writer. As for the "only one 200-hit season" standard, you can disqualify any Hall-of-Famer if you pick one random criterion of excellence. Babe Ruth only had three 200-hit seasons. Rickey Henderson had zero. Walter Johnson never got more than 42 hits in a year!

I'd love to hear how the "know it when I see it" test applies to Curt Schilling. And I'd like to hear him make that case without insulting the "stat heads," as he did in this column.

[Edgy MD]

I need to get out into the sun!

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

A disgraceful column from a disgraced -- http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/01/08/espn-fires-rob-parker/ -- columnist. How does Rob Parker have a HOF vote?


http://theshadowleague.com/articles/yeah-i-m-voting-for-ped-users-in-the-mlb-hall-of-fame

[Frayed Knot]

Yeah Parker's been an idiot on more than a few occasions (he was writing for NEWSDAY for a short spell) but there's actually more in his piece there that I agree with than disagree.
That's not to say that my ballot would be identical to his or that I agree with all his reasoning, but I like the fact that he realizes that you just can't pretend that the 1990s never existed and that by doing so you risk falling into the trap of over-rating non-steroid era players just to compensate.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

Frayed Knot wrote: Yeah Parker's been an idiot on more than a few occasions (he was writing for NEWSDAY for a short spell) but there's actually more in his piece there that I agree with than disagree. That's not to say that my ballot would be identical to his or that I agree with all his reasoning, but I like the fact that he realizes that you just can't pretend that the 1990s never existed and that by doing so you risk falling into the trap of over-rating non-steroid era players just to compensate.

My frustration is that he automatically dismisses Piazza -- and others -- simply because he didn't get 500 homers or 3,000 hits.

[Frayed Knot]

MFS62 wrote: A writer saying its time for the HOF to do something about steroids. Some other interesting stuff, especially about Ted Williams. http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/12/26/time-for-a-hall-of-fame-stand/ Later

I think it's a bit early to be panicking over this.
The HoF/steroid issue--meaning the era where known 'roiders have been coming up for votes--is only a few years old at this point and I think a lot of the writers are still sorting things out in their own heads. If this is still a muddled issue a decade or so from now then maybe some pow-wow needs to take place. But right now all that has happened is that a handful of players are left waiting longer than they thought based on some choices they made a while back; not something I'm going to lose sleep over.

[Frayed Knot]

metsguyinmichigan wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: Yeah Parker's been an idiot on more than a few occasions (he was writing for NEWSDAY for a short spell) but there's actually more in his piece there that I agree with than disagree. That's not to say that my ballot would be identical to his or that I agree with all his reasoning, but I like the fact that he realizes that you just can't pretend that the 1990s never existed and that by doing so you risk falling into the trap of over-rating non-steroid era players just to compensate. My frustration is that he automatically dismisses Piazza -- and others -- simply because he didn't get 500 homers or 3,000 hits.

Like I said, I disagree with some of his logic regarding individual choices, but not with his overall philosophy on the big roids issue of the day.

[Edgy MD]

Problem is that in a decade or so, the window will have closed for many, and quite possibly closed on a player or two or six that are both clean and historically deserving --- or would have been considered deserving in any other context.

So no, don't panic, but do keep the heat on people using bad logic.