2016 Baseball HoF Voting

[Guest d'Kong76]

Ceetar wrote: I hate the idea that they're somehow worse because they dared to get caught. Like it's somehow okay if you're GOOD at taking steroids, but if you pick the wrong trainer, shame on you!

I don't know anyone who thinks this. At least I think I don't.
Dared? GOOD? I don't get it.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Ceetar wrote: shame is of course, subjective.

As is fame.

The whole thing is subjective.

[Ceetar]

d'Kong76 wrote: Ceetar wrote: I hate the idea that they're somehow worse because they dared to get caught. Like it's somehow okay if you're GOOD at taking steroids, but if you pick the wrong trainer, shame on you! I don't know anyone who thinks this. At least I think I don't. Dared? GOOD? I don't get it.

Plenty of people point to "oh, but he failed a test/admitted it/etc" as reasoning. They're not out and out saying "don't get caught" but it's what they're implying by being okay with voting for some 'steroid era' guys and not others.

Ceetar wrote: shame is of course, subjective. As is fame. The whole thing is subjective.

Indeed. Mike Piazza IS a Hall of Famer in my view of baseball. I don't need a subjective group of writers to say so. Hall of Fame, to me, means the cream of the crop of baseball history. I'm over it.

Personally, I think this poll should be edited to remove the guys we voted for successfully last year. The majority of Poolers have Mike in the hall, therefore he's in.

[Gwreck]

dgwphotography wrote: Yep, and McGwire minus the juice is nothing more than a glorified Dave Kingman...

Why are you so sure that Kingman didn't use "the juice" too?

If you want to discount the 140 extra homers that McGwire had over Kingman because of steriods, fine. McGwire had an on-base percentage a hundred points higher than Kingman for his career. (Or is that "the Juice" too?)

Sammy Sosa never tested positive (like Palmeiro). He never admitted using steriods (as did McGwire). He never was criminally prosecuted (Bonds, Clemens). What's everybody's problem with him? The corked bat?

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Bagwell
Bonds
Clemens
Griffey
Martinez
Mussina
Piazza
Raines
Schilling
Trammell

BORDERLINE
Edmonds
Hoffman
Kent
McGriff
McGwire
Sosa
Wagner
Walker

[Gwreck]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Bagwell Bonds Clemens Griffey Martinez Mussina Piazza Raines Schilling Trammell BORDERLINE Edmonds Hoffman Kent McGriff McGwire Sosa Wagner Walker

McGwire got my tenth vote, with Mussina dropped into the "would vote for if I had 11 spots."
Otherwise, I think this is a perfect ballot.

[Vic Sage]

Sammy Sosa never tested positive (like Palmeiro). He never admitted using steriods (as did McGwire). He never was criminally prosecuted (Bonds, Clemens). What's everybody's problem with him? The corked bat?

Sosa DID test positive, one of 104 players who tested positive during the "anonymous" testing survey in 2003 that led to the new drug policy. Sosa and A-Rod's names were leaked. Sosa worked out with trainer Angel Presinal from 2001 to 2003 in the Dominican Republic. Presinal, who also worked with Alex Rodriguez and Juan Gonzalez, has been banned by Major League Baseball from its ballparks and clubhouses.

From 1993-97, Sosa emerged as an excellent major league hitter for the Cubs, after a few years with Texas and the White Sox. Then, he showed up in 98 with an new physique and started hitting like Bonds for 5 years. Then, after drug testing he faded quickly away.

He is in the category of Bonds, McGwire, Tejada, Palmiero, A-Rod, Manny, Petitte, Braun and Juan Gonzalez, of great players who got caught, not players like Bagwell and Piazza, about whom there are only rumors and innuendo. If you're of the type to make those distinctions, there is evidence to do so. Me, i vote them all in, and let heaven sort them out. I'd vote for Rose too.

My problem with Sosa is more the "no comprendo" testimony to congress, which damned McGwire, Palmiero and Clemens, too. Even so, i would vote for Sammy as well as 15 other guys on the outside looking in.

[Gwreck]

Vic Sage wrote: Sosa DID test positive, one of 104 players who tested positive during the "anonymous" testing survey in 2003 that led to the new drug policy. Sosa and A-Rod's names were leaked.

For what it's worth, I personally think it's likely that Sosa used PEDs. But I also know that a "leak" of anonymous survey testing is nowhere close to any reliable evidentiary standard.

I generally waver between finding this topic maddening and depressing. The arbitrary line-drawing of who "cheated," or who brought "shame" to baseball are a bunch of nonsense. Just put the best players in.

[Centerfield]

Exactly. Either there was official testing, or there wasn't. For these players, there was no testing. So it's patently unfair to blacklist some, but not others.

Allowing all voters to come up with their on standards of guilt add to make this process a complete mess.

The HoF needs a complete reboot. The whole process is a farce.

Now that testing is in place, the Hall can make a ruling (if they want) that any player who tests positive will automatically be denied entry. Or they can elect not to. It's up to them.

Once a player is eligible, the voters should vote based upon the player's performance. And only the player's performance. If you add anything else, this already subjective standard becomes too arbitrary and random.

Anyone not adhering to these standards should lose their vote. So, for if instance, if you fail to vote for Rickey Henderson because you think he's a Hall of Famer, but not a "first ballot guy". Or if you think Rickey belongs but you don't want anyone to beat Seaver's %, then you are too stupid to vote and should be replaced.

[Frayed Knot]

Gwreck wrote: Why does everyone assume Ken Griffey Jr. didn't do steroids? .

Because it's easier for many folks to simply divide this topic into guilty vs not witout distinctions for 'maybe' or for shades of gray within either side.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Centerfield wrote: Once a player is eligible, the voters should vote based upon the player's performance. And only the player's performance. If you add anything else, this already subjective standard becomes too arbitrary and random.

But the player's character is already part of the official criteria:

5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

If it was just about the numbers, then yes, Bonds and Clemens would definitely go in. But I can't fault voters who choose not to ignore "integrity, sportsmanship, character". In fact, I agree with them.

[Guest d'Kong76]

I wonder if the writers just voted in all the suspect superstars once
and for all if there would be a boycott of members of the HOF of the
induction ceremonies.

This gets tiresome year after year and it's only going to get worse.

Vote 'em all in, it was an era and it was what it was, and MLB make
a new rule that if you get caught 'roidin' up you are automatically
ineligible for induction due to cheating.

Frankly, I would watch an induction ceremony of Bonds, Clemens
and a few others and laugh at the smirks on their collective faces.

[Guest cooby classic]

Maybe Sammy Sosa ate lots of ice cream that winter and the weight all landed in his arms.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Someone should have felt his arms to see if they were chilly.

[Centerfield]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Once a player is eligible, the voters should vote based upon the player's performance. And only the player's performance. If you add anything else, this already subjective standard becomes too arbitrary and random. But the player's character is already part of the official criteria: 5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played. If it was just about the numbers, then yes, Bonds and Clemens would definitely go in. But I can't fault voters who choose not to ignore "integrity, sportsmanship, character". In fact, I agree with them.

I understand it's there now. And that is what writers are using to justify their decisions. As part of my reboot, I would remove it and just base it on performance.

The "character and integrity" standard sounds great in theory. And I understand the HoF wanting to give flexibility for voters to keep complete dickheads from gaining entry. But that criteria lends itself to abuse, such as those writers who decline to vote for someone merely on suspicion of steroids. The writers who won't vote for Piazza because they have an unsubstantiated suspicion that he is of low moral character.

Judging the numbers of one individual against another's is already fairly subjective. Once you throw in the nice guy standard and allow writers to become the judge of crimes, real or imagined, the standard deteriorates and the guidelines become too random.

In my opinion anyway.

[Centerfield]

At the end of the day, baseball brought this mess upon itself by looking the other way as steroids became rampant in the sport.

It destroyed hallowed numbers like 61, 714 and 755. When I was growing up, everyone knew 755, 714, 660.

What are the home run records now? Does anyone even know without looking?

And by the same token, they fucked up the Hall of Fame as well.

[nymr83]

Frayed Knot wrote: Why does everyone assume Ken Griffey Jr. didn't do steroids?

Why should there be any presumption of guilt? Nobody has ever specifically accused Griffey that I know of. There have never been criminal proceedings or failed drug tests (official or leaked) that we know of. its actually pretty absurd to even have to "defend" him (or Piazza or Bagwell)

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

Confused by the lack of love for Hoffman. His 601 career saves is second on the all-time list, and he's about 125 ahead of the No. 3 guy. Seven-time All-Star.

If this guy's not in the hall, then it seems like we are devaluing closers.

[Ceetar]

Centerfield wrote: At the end of the day, baseball brought this mess upon itself by looking the other way as steroids became rampant in the sport. It destroyed hallowed numbers like 61, 714 and 755. When I was growing up, everyone knew 755, 714, 660. What are the home run records now? Does anyone even know without looking? And by the same token, they fucked up the Hall of Fame as well.

762 and 73. without looking, yes.

and in 20 years, so will EVERYONE. You had decades to memorize those other numbers.

Bonds was the greatest baseball player ever. We got to watch him. He's a Hall of Famer.

[Frayed Knot]

Nymr83 wrote: Why does everyone assume Ken Griffey Jr. didn't do steroids? Why should there be any presumption of guilt? Nobody has ever specifically accused Griffey that I know of. There have never been criminal proceedings or failed drug tests (official or leaked) that we know of. its actually pretty absurd to even have to "defend" him (or Piazza or Bagwell)

Not that there should be a presumption of guilt, but not an automatic assumption of innocence either.

And that's pretty much been the history of the post-steroid era*: the tendency to think of those who were caught as lepers while guys who haven't are looked to as virtues of sport - when in fact the difference may only be that one name was leaked while the other never was; or that one got caught up in the very first sample testing so is thought of as dirty forever while another could have used more or for longer but simply wasn't snagged in that original trial.


* well, not post-steroids but the post-steroid reveal era

[Guest d'Kong76]

Ceetar wrote: Bonds was the greatest baseball player ever.

I'm done with HoF Voting thread.

[nymr83]

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Confused by the lack of love for Hoffman. His 601 career saves is second on the all-time list, and he's about 125 ahead of the No. 3 guy. Seven-time All-Star. If this guy's not in the hall, then it seems like we are devaluing closers.

I don't place much value on closers relative to starters, I dont think any of them deserve even a sniff of consideration over the other guys on the ballot.

Bonds was the greatest baseball player ever.

I would go Ruth-Williams-Bonds, with maybe Mays ahead of Bonds too.

[Ceetar]

Nymr83 wrote: I would go Ruth-Williams-Bonds, with maybe Mays ahead of Bonds too.

Sure, that's fair. It's really hard to compare different eras with different equipment and fields and conditions and medicines objectively. Maybe impossibly. Bonds is up there though.

[Edgy MD]

Surpised to find out that this is Trammell's last year on the ballot. I'm a long-time supporter. He's weird in that his hitting was either outstanding or not particularly good, from year to year, but overall, I find him pretty comparable to Barry Larkin.

[Edgy MD]

With approximately 27% of ballots counted, we're looking at at Bagwell, Griffey (100%!!), Piazza, and Raines.

The noble cause of Alan Trammell going down in flames. Lasted a lot longer than Lou Whittaker (who may have had an even stronger case), anyhow.

[dgwphotography]

Edgy MD wrote: With approximately 27% of ballots counted, we're looking at at Bagwell, Griffey (100%!!), Piazza, and Raines.

This exactly matches my ballot in this poll.

If Seaver's record is to be topped, I would rather it be topped by Griffey than Jeter.

[nymr83]

i want a writer to come out and say he didnt vote for Jeter because of the gift baskets.

[Benjamin Grimm]

It would be more entertaining if Jeter himself "came out."

[Edgy MD]

dgwphotography wrote: Edgy MD wrote: With approximately 27% of ballots counted, we're looking at at Bagwell, Griffey (100%!!), Piazza, and Raines. This exactly matches my ballot in this poll. If Seaver's record is to be topped, I would rather it be topped by Griffey than Jeter.

I'm guessing it won't be topped this year.

I mean, the ones who are stingiest with their ballots, or go all grumpy and turn in a blank ballot, are not typically the ones writing columns and publishing their ballots beforehand.

Griffey, interestingly, kind of gets extra points for the monster stats he didn't put up—being an outstanding and exciting player with an engaging style in his twenties, and aging and breaking down in his thirties, reportedly falling asleep in the clubhouse at the end of his career. While this could count against him in another era, in this one, it's led to a consensus assumption that he played clean. Maybe he did.

[nymr83]

it sucked that he couldn't stay on the field more, he went from being potentially a top-5 player all-time in the first half of his career to finishing probably just inside the top 50 if you look at total careers and not just his amazing peak.