Is this Piazza's year?

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Ceetar wrote: This isn't some pinnacle of humanity inducting humans into some pillar of humanity, they're just people picking great players. I just think it's ridiculous to assert that someone would have trouble being selected because they're Catholic or Republican.

Probably not him specifically, but it'd be more about something he said or did rather than his specific ideology. I don't know what specific thing SJR was referring to.

Of course, that's because Piazza's in the majority. It's almost definitely happened to other guys that we haven't noticed, especially along the fringes. Delgado caught some flak once upon a time for a political stance he took, rather quietly, but it's only a couple of votes more that would've kept him on the ballot. Who else? What happens when a gay player becomes known? What happens if say Ken Griffey Jr comes out before next year? The voters hardly seem to be voting with any sort of integrity, and I only see it getting worse.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

I think it's a lot less likely that specific, strong views on abortion or euthanasia or whether the Bartman game was a government-perpetrated hoax will keep ANY player out than, say, his being an asshole to journos (or to teammates, if said assholiness is so intense that they've complained loudly enough to beat writers) would.

[Frayed Knot]

I heard (longtime Boston writer) Dan Shaughnessy recently talking about how he's gone overboard at times to vote For guys that he personally disliked (Jim Rice, Curt Schilliing) just so it couldn't be said that he was voting against them for personal reasons.
In Piazza's case, I doubt there are more than a handful of writers who even read his book much less cared about it enough to base their votes on it.

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: SteveJRogers wrote: themetfairy wrote: I blame Long Shot. The book made him look like a petulant child, and probably cost him enough votes to keep him out. I've seen a tin foil theory put forth that his faith and politics actually may have something to do with people who do not share his political or religious beliefs not voting for him. 'character clause' means "hey, I don't like you."

I disagree with that.

I also think that Schilling's political religious views have virtually nothing to do with his non-election. (1) They weren't particularly apparent until after his retirement, and fews of the electorate could give two figs about his post-career life. (2) Baseball is teeming with Christian Republicans.

Piazza's book? Probably didn't do him any favors, but it probably didn't keep him out either. I mean, it's come out since last year's election, and his vote total has climbed from 62.2% to 69.9%

[stevejrogers]

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: This isn't some pinnacle of humanity inducting humans into some pillar of humanity, they're just people picking great players. I just think it's ridiculous to assert that someone would have trouble being selected because they're Catholic or Republican. Probably not him specifically, but it'd be more about something he said or did rather than his specific ideology. I don't know what specific thing SJR was referring to. Of course, that's because Piazza's in the majority. It's almost definitely happened to other guys that we haven't noticed, especially along the fringes. Delgado caught some flak once upon a time for a political stance he took, rather quietly, but it's only a couple of votes more that would've kept him on the ballot. Who else? What happens when a gay player becomes known? What happens if say Ken Griffey Jr comes out before next year? The voters hardly seem to be voting with any sort of integrity, and I only see it getting worse.

It wasn't my theory, so I don't know if it is anything beyond a theory put forth by a guy too bitter about the state of journalism in this country being too liberal leaning for his taste.

[Edgy MD]

You know, if someone should come with evidence before refusing to vote for a player over steroids, shouldn't we come with evidence before making assumptions of anti-Catholic or anti-Christian bias? How goofy.

Baselessly assuming somebody has a malicious and bigoted motive for their actions really has no place in the discussion. Conflating the BBWAA and ISIS is beyond the pale of any logical sense. Let's not poison the well here.

[nymr83]

enough with the religion and politics, Val's post raises points, the bold below is mine as i see less legit candidates over the next few years which could be a good thing for the 10-12 legit guys still on the ballot.

2020 has no legit candidates, but i guess someone could still retire before next season starts? Beltran? Ichiro?

Also, there are NO legit pitchers until 2019, that has to help Schilling/Mussina

Worth laying out the upcoming contenders: 2016 Ken Griffey, Jr. - Will hit a percentage somewhere near Seaver. Trevor Hoffman - All-time saves leader at time of retirement, with 601. Jim Edmonds - 8-time Gold Glove winner, 4-time All-Star, 393 HRs Billy Wagner - 422 saves is 2nd among LHPs, career ERA of 2.31, career WHIP of 0.998 Also in this class - Luis Castillo, Mike Hampton, Chan Ho Park, Mike Sweeney, Jason Kendall 2017 Vladimir Guerrero - Find it hard to believe he won't get in on the first ballot, but something tells me that's what happens, because Hall voters are morons. Ivan Rodriguez - In many ways the "other" great catcher of Piazza's era. Probably gets in but not on first ballot. Manny Ramirez - Worthy numbers, but multiple positive PED tests probably keep him out. Jorge Posada - MFY hacks will make a push for him, but destined for the Hall of Very Good Also in this class - Mike Cameron, Pat Burrell, Magglio Ordonez, Edgar Renteria, Jason Varitek 2018 Jim Thome - 612 HRs. Should be first-ballot guy. Chipper Jones - Also probably first-ballot guy. Omar Vizquel - Defensive wizard, won 11 Gold Gloves, but also 2,877 hits, 404 SBs and 1,445 runs scored. Most games played at SS in history at 2,709. Andruw Jones - 10 Gold Gloves, 5-time All-Star. Johnny Damon - 2,769 hits, 408 SBs, 2004 World Series star. Scott Rolen - 8 Gold Gloves, 7-time All-Star. 316 HRs, 1,287 RBI Jamie Moyer - The Pitcher That Never Got Old. 269 wins in 25 seasons. Also in this class - Jason Isringhausen, Livan Hernandez, Chris Carpenter, Carlos Lee, Hideki Matsui, Kerry Wood 2019 Mariano Rivera - Will test just how much love closers have from Hall voters. Can a closer break 90%? Roy Halladay - The workhorse of his generation who should make it in. Andy Pettitte - 256 wins in 18 seasons, most postseason wins. Todd Helton - Great 1B but how much of that was Coors? Also in this class - Lance Berkman, Darren Oliver, Roy Oswalt, Michael Young 2020 Derek Jeter - Boston writers may keep him from Seaver's record. Paul Konerko - 439 HRs, 1,412 RBI Alfonso Soriano - 412 HRs, 289 SBs Also in this class (so far) Kevin Youkilis

[Edgy MD]

Other 2020 Balloteers

Josh Becket
Paul Konerko
Adam Dunn
Bobby Abreu
Alfonso Soriano
Matt Treanor
Octavio Dotel
JJ Putz

Possibly
Torii Hunter
Jason Giambi
Johnny Damon
Ichiro Suzuki

[G-Fafif]

Long Shot came out in hardcover a month after the 2013 vote, the first one that didn't go Piazza's way. Its failure to be a "smoking gun" seems to gnaw at some of the voters who still express disappointment that he didn't confirm their "suspicions," Claire Smith and Steve Marcus, to name two such killjoys.

("Quote marks" are fun to use.)

At a touch under 70%, Mike can only be passed over for so long. Next year in Cooperstown!

For this year, congratulations to Pedro, who truly graced the black, blue and orange if not quite effectively enough long enough healthily enough. With most of the file footage portraying him pitching for the Red Sox, his four years as a Met seem, like Michigan to Simon & Garfunkel, a dream to me now.

BTW, I was the Delgado voter in our little poll, mostly out of "this guy is too good to fall off the ballot" instinct. Not enough real voters felt that way, alas.

[Edgy MD]

G-Fafif wrote: Long Shot came out in hardcover a month after the 2013 vote, the first one that didn't go Piazza's way.

You look stupid now, Edgy.

[Frayed Knot]

And in case one is wondering about the impact of perception and image on fans and writers, check out the (small) differences in 162 game/avgs between two 20 year career players with near identical plate appearances (12,504 vs 12,602).

[table:184sajbz][tr:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]PA[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]AB[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]H[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]2B[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]3B[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]HR[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]SB[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]CS[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]BB[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]K[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]BA[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]OBA[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]SLG[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]OPS+[/td:184sajbz][/tr:184sajbz]
[tr:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]711[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]618[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]174[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]38[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]3[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]17[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]24[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]7[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]66[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]100[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz].281[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz].363[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz].433[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]112[/td:184sajbz][/tr:184sajbz]
[tr:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]743[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]660[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]204[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]32[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]4[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]15[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]21[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]6[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]64[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]109[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz].310[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz].377[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz].440[/td:184sajbz][td:184sajbz]115[/td:184sajbz][/tr:184sajbz][/table:184sajbz]

One, it turns out, had a career which inspires calls for induction by unanimous acclimation and/or a waiving of the five-year waiting period.
The other needed three elections to get in, peaked at a low-80's pct approval, and will continue to be dismissed as "a compiler" in certain circles.

[Ceetar]

Biggio and Jeter I presume?

[stevejrogers]

Frayed Knot wrote: And in case one is wondering about the impact of perception and image on fans and writers, check out the (small) differences in 162 game/avgs between two 20 year career players with near identical plate appearances (12,504 vs 12,602). PA AB H 2B 3B HR SB CS BB K BA OBA SLG OPS+ 711 618 174 38 3 17 24 7 66 100 .281 .363 .433 112 743 660 204 32 4 15 21 6 64 109 .310 .377 .440 115 One, it turns out, had a career which inspires calls for induction by unanimous acclimation and/or a waiving of the five-year waiting period. The other needed three elections to get in, peaked at a low-80's pct approval, and will continue to be dismissed as "a compiler" in certain circles.

LOL! Yes but look at the postseason stats! *rolls eyes*

[stevejrogers]

Also don't forget that Jeets probably has much more high profile guilt by association taint through his career than Biggio, despite being Ken Caminiti's teammate.

[MFS62]

When we're looking for possible motives for not voting for Piazza, I look at 4 of the voters listed above:
Heyman
Noble
Sherman
Verducci

Haven't at least 3 of them(maybe not Noble) been posted about here over the years for being "anti-Met"? Maybe they would have voted for Mike if he had played for some other team.

As Dennis Miller says, "That's my opinion and, I may be wrong".

Later

[Edgy MD]

I have quibbles with everybody, as individuals, but I tend to think that the quirks of individuals are largely canceled out in the body at large. And the process has, more or less, worked. Four guys got elected --- a relatively large class from a packed ballot. Two of them were far and away the best candidates. One (Biggio) is an excellent candidate that has been gaining momentum. The fourth guy (Smoltz) may or may not be the best of the remaining candidates, but it's certainly not unreasonable to think so.

So, you know, too bad for Piazza, but he's still got his pile of money, and a sweet lifestyle to comfort him until next year. I'm kind of hesitant to get behind too many of the calls for reform.

I guess what I most don't like is the 5% threshold, eliminating guys from all future ballots. I tend to think a packed ballot like this gets writers to vote no on the likes of Larry Walker and Carlos Delgado and Alan Trammel without a lot of thought. These are candidacies that were probably unlikely to gain momentum anyhow, but it stinks seeing them lost in the shuffle.

Yeah, the BBWAA has not built consensus on how to handle the historic legacies of steroid abusers. Neither has MLB. Neither has society. As a body, we can hardly ask them to speak with one voice. But if we 75% can agree, that's OK by me.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

MFS62 wrote: When we're looking for possible motives for not voting for Piazza, I look at 4 of the voters listed above: Heyman Noble Sherman Verducci Haven't at least 3 of them(maybe not Noble) been posted about here over the years for being "anti-Met"? Maybe they would have voted for Mike if he had played for some other team. As Dennis Miller says, "That's my opinion and, I may be wrong". Later

Yes you frequently post how anti-Met Joel Sherman is, and just as often, it's pointed out how little evidence there is of that. Same with Jon Heyman. Same with Verducci. What all 3 have in common is being PED Suspect Bible Thumpers. Noble is another case entirely, he's one of those like Madden and Shaunessy who trump up their own sense as gatekeepers and seem to believe there's a value in the pace at which worthy guys are allowed entry.

I don't think Sherman even revealed his votes publicly this year, other than saying he was voting for Bonds. He did not vote for Piazza last year.

[Ceetar]

Sherman's the Post right? They tweeted out all their staff's picks.

I don't think they have any particular Mets bias, but there's a little bit of 'pick on the Mets' narrative around the club and lesser writers, national ones in particular who don't have time/energy to dig deeper, tend to jump on the narrative which often has the affect of feeling like it's piling on or bias.

Anyway, give the Mets a year or two and we'll be fighting off East Coast Bias type stuff as national guys are lavishing praise on our rotation and pissing off everyone else.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Name	Votes (Pct.)	Jon Heyman's predicted %
Randy Johnson	534 (97.3)	96%
Pedro Martinez	500 (91.1)	95%
John Smoltz	455 (82.9)	73%
Craig Biggio	454 (82.7)	75%

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Ceetar wrote: Sherman's the Post right? They tweeted out all their staff's picks. I don't think they have any particular Mets bias, but there's a little bit of 'pick on the Mets' narrative around the club and lesser writers, national ones in particular who don't have time/energy to dig deeper, tend to jump on the narrative which often has the affect of feeling like it's piling on or bias. Anyway, give the Mets a year or two and we'll be fighting off East Coast Bias type stuff as national guys are lavishing praise on our rotation and pissing off everyone else.

NY tabloids pick on all the teams -- the fans, really -- because it's what they do. I'd argue the perception of a national press bias is one shared by fans of every team in every city. But the suggestion that the bias would play out in Hall of Fame voting, particularly where one of them made a point not to reveal votes and all of them voted for 1 Met, is as always out there.

I didn't see the Post's reveals. Sherman's column in December made a point of saying he was keeping his ballot a secret so as not to influence the debate beyond his personal convictions. I suppose the Post revealing after the ballots were counted doesn't really violate that.

[Edgy MD]

Heyman can be a frustrating figure, but I don't think it's anti-Met bias that makes him so.

He sure was a stubborn and zealous warrior in the Armando Wars, though.

Verducci hitched his wagon to the myth of the Torre/Jeter-era Yankees, but that too doesn't necessarily equate to anti-Met.

Anti-human, maybe, but not necessarily anti-Met.

But it's about being provocateurs. Mets management is easy to dump on these days and it's a good target for lazy writers, but that doesn't mean they vote against Piazza or Pedro or Delgado because of their uniform.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

This election, a matter of anti-Met bias, or I Am The Law, or general curmudgeonliness?

It's the stupid-PED-assumption, stupid.

[Edgy MD]

Claire Smith wrote: I have not yet been convinced on several levels. It's delicate, but every decision on each candidate is, and should be. Some candidates are slam dunks. Others need to be weighed over time periods that might not satisfy fans, but have to satisfy the voter that he or she has reached an educated, learned conclusion. I have time. So does Mike. Cy Young wasn't elected right away. A lot of the greats did not get in til after 10 years of eligibility.

Firstly, every decision being delicate and "Some candidates are slam dunks" are contradictory positions.

Secondly, Cy Young didn't get in because there was a 19th Century Committee and a 20th Century Committee, and neither committee was certain whether Young was fully theirs to consider, and whether they were to consider the whole of his career. It was a failure of process to the extent that it was a failure.

But it was the first year of elections, and he was running against every player who ever played the game ever. This is tr�s different.

In general, I guess I get the "I don't want to look stupid if something comes up later." But do your own investigation. That's how things come up.

[bmfc1]

http://www.murraychass.com/?p=8373
Chass again damns Mike Piazza with speculation and rumor but offers no evidence.

[Edgy MD]

Well, he has evidence, just not conclusive evidence.

Man, Chass's page hits must multiply by a factor of 10 about this time of year.

[Vic Sage]

The New York Times mentioned Piazza and steroids in the same story, and that was by far my favorite. On at least two occasions, maybe three, during Piazza�s years with the New York Mets (1998-2005), as a baseball writer and columnist for The New York Times, I wanted to write about Piazza and the possibility that he had used steroids. However, I was told I could not because Piazza hadn�t tested positive for steroids use and hadn�t been named anywhere as a suspected user. An article in the Times Wednesday cited Piazza�s 427 career home runs and .308 batting average and said, �Those are standout numbers. But in an era in which the voting is shadowed by baseball�s entanglement with steroids, Piazza has suffered from the perception, among some writers, that he might have been a user, although no evidence has emerged that he was.� The article was written by Jay Schreiber, who was the editor who said I couldn�t write about Piazza and steroids.

Chass's proposed article didn't meet minimal journalistic standards. Where were his facts? His 2 sources? He had nothing but "whispers" and suspicion. So his editor rightly rejected it (Chass should have gone to work at the Post; they have no standards.) Now the Times covers the story -- not about Piazza using steroids, but about the suspicions of writers (like Chass) and how that has effected Piazza's vote -- and Chass misuses this distinction to make some kind of vague point about... what? Hypocrisy? Unfortunate change of view? It's unclear except to the extent that Chass can't see the difference between what the Times said to him and what it's doing now. And that's why he is a shitty journalist and his ability to form rational, reasoned conclusions is far more suspect than Piazza's bacne.

[Zvon]

Read what Madden had to say after the votes were in. Maybe I'm wrong, but if he's going to use what some anonymous player said about Piazza using steroids, he's got to name that player. I mean, if a player said something to him and he kept it to himself, and it privately influenced his choices, fine. But if he's going to say that a player told him Mike was using, and publicly make that his excuse for not voting for him, he's should reveal that source so the person can be interviewed by others about the validity of his claim. He's a reporter for chriesake.

[Centerfield]

The entire system is broken. In concept, it was a great idea. Let the Hall of Fame be determined by the baseball writers, professionals who covered the game and are in a position to know it the best. Baseball writers were guided by principles of journalism. Presumably they would carry that professionalism across to their voting.

But baseball writers fail to uphold this standard. And as the integrity of journalism deteriorated, it got even worse. Writers started creating their own arbitrary distinctions. They let their personal feelings cloud their judgment. And now, they see no shame in making these arbitrary determinations public.

They don't vote for certain worthy candidates because they don't believe that he's "first ballot material". They cast votes for unworthy candidates because they liked them, or covered them. And most importantly, they are arbitrarily including or excluding players based upon whispers and unfounded suspicion of steroids.

If I were on the board of the HOF, I would be livid that writers are abusing the privilege that has been granted to them. The rules are simple, if a player is eligible, he is to be considered. If his performance warrants induction, the vote should be in favor. It doesn't matter if it's his first time on the ballot or not.

I said it back when Rickey Henderson was up for induction and didn't get a unanimous approval. If a writer cannot recognize that Rickey Henderson is a Hall of Famer, that person has no business voting.

I would love to see the HOF set up a steering committee, where writers are called in to defend egregious ballots. But it will never happen. And so the Hall of Fame will remain what it is...meaningless. Just a nice museum to go see old baseball shit.

[Edgy MD]

While individual writers indeed have their arbitrary standards, aren't these largely canceled out in the great body of the electorate.

I mean, didn't we get a meaningful, valid and defensible outcome, even if the process, and the process of some guy's thinking, aired in social media, isn't always pretty? Is the return of these four guys as a result of the process any less valid and authentic than what was returned in 2005, 1995, 1985, or 1975?

[Edgy MD]

I mean, in the first year of voting, Babe Ruth received votes on but 95.1% of the ballots, so it's not as if things are necessarily and definitively deteriorating.