2013 HOF What is your ballot?

[The Game]

Originally Posted by jaysdailydose

Based on looking at these ballots, Mariano Rivera is going to be a toughie, and Trevor Hoffman has no shot, and even more obviously -- championships don't really matter.

Both players for me are 1st ballot HOFrs and make Smith look like Billy Koch.

[AnotherAlias]

Originally Posted by swampdragon

Because I'm opposed to players going in whose statistics are a fraud due to steroid use.

^^^^this

1. Mike Piazza
2. Craig Biggio
3. Mark McGwire
4. Barry Bonds
5. Roger Clemens
6. Rafael Palmeiro
7. Tim Raines
8. Jeff Bagwell

[CONN CHRIS]

Originally Posted by The Game

Last year that 3 made it was 1999. Ryan, Brett, Yount. No one in this class is even half as good as them. I want to see Raines over Bagwell for 2 reasons. 1, He is 5th all time in SB and the other 4 in front of him are all HOFers, he is also the last player over 800 SB. 2. I like him more then I like Bagwell.

You put Bagwell in your magical three which for some reason is a limit you believe exists and then say you want Raines over Bagwell but didn't include him in the magical three. I just have no idea what you are trying to say. And no one in this class was half as good as Ryan, Brett and Yount - yikes.

A hall of fame without the all time HR, hit and Cy Young kings just isn't a hall of fame anymore. It's something else; what it is I can't say.

[VanillaGorilla]

Originally Posted by jaysdailydose

Morris won't get in next year, and apparently Curt's stellar career including being perhaps the best postseason pitcher EVER didn't mean very much either. Not even 40% of the writers consider the unquestioned best big-game pitcher of the last decade a Hall of Famer.

The voters, being the quirky lot that they are, will put in Schilling after Maddux is inducted. There is that sacrosanct 'first ballot' mystique for many voters, but not all. I will eat serious crow if I am sitting here in 5 years (eagerly anticipating the release of OOTP 19) and Curt isn't inducted. Maybe some voters will hold out for Pedro to get in before checking Curt's box. That is their call to make, and I find it to be silly, but it is an election dynamic that is in play.

Keith Hernandez barely received 5% of the vote his first year (1996), and was off the ballot after 2004. His lack of support was not due to anything he ever did or didn't do on the field.

I disagree with you about Morris. I did not put him on my list because I knew he had next year remaining. I think you will see him get in. I was a bit older than 6 in 1984. Jack Morris won more games in the 80s than anyone. He started opening day year after year. He was a rock, an inning eater, and made the rest of his staff better. In short, he was a winner. If you bump Schill because of his post season prowess, I think Morris deserves this bump, also. Morris v Schilling in a Game 7...scoreless in the 11th inning.

[rpriske]

Originally Posted by CONN CHRIS

A hall of fame without the all time HR, hit and Cy Young kings just isn't a hall of fame anymore. It's something else; what it is I can't say.

Exactly.

[Ragnar]

I would vote for Pete Rose before Bonds or any of the steroid users. They would never get in if it were up to me.

[VanillaGorilla]

Quote: Originally Posted by CONN CHRIS

"A hall of fame without the all time HR, hit and Cy Young kings just isn't a hall of fame anymore. It's something else; what it is I can't say."

.

Originally Posted by Ragnar

I would vote for Pete Rose before Bonds or any of the steroid users. They would never get in if it were up to me.

The problem is that the HOF is not allowed to consider Rose. I think this is wrong. If Joe Jackson could be voted on, so can Pete Rose. Still waiting on that phone call letting me know that I am being put in charge of these things....

[Charlie Hough]

I applaud the BBWAA for once. Most of the players on this year's list should never be inducted and especially those who obviously broke the law in an effort to cheat their way to stardom.

My standard is always FAME (not infamy) and particularly the sort of fame that seems likely to mean that a player will still be a household name among casual baseball fans in 50 to 100 years. The Hall of Fame should have little to do with numbers. It's not a Hall of Stats after all.

Aside from the idiots who are automatically disqualified due to their infamy, I would say that the closest to 50-year fame we had in this class were Dale Murphy and Don Mattingly.

[Jason Moyer]

I have no problem with keeping steroid users out of the hall of fame. My problem is the double standard being applied to guys who played in the 90's while everyone forgets that guys like Mays and Stargell were selling amphetamines and steroids in their own clubhouses, Mantle missed part of the 1961 season because of an infection from a dirty needle filled with...GASP...steroids, and Hank Aaron played with the only guy from that era who has actually had the balls to come out and admit that he and everyone else were taking steroids in the 60's and 70's (and beyond that, most likely the 50's as anabolic steroids were already being abused in sports shortly after WWII).

[swampdragon]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

I would vote for Pete Rose before Bonds or any of the steroid users. They would never get in if it were up to me.

""

[magnet]

swampy, would you have voted for Mantle/Aaron or any of the other greenie users?

[AnotherAlias]

I used to feel that baseball players who used amphetamines in the past should be given a free pass because I once believed that speed wasn't used so much for performance enhancement as it was used a means to keep a player awake.

I've changed my stance on that. I would not be in favor of allowing players who used greenies into the HOF. With that being said, I feel the same way towards players who have used steroids as a PED.

We cannot rightly turn back the clock and remove players already in the Hall, but keeping players out that inflated their numbers using PEDs moving forward is the right thing to do.

[Jason Moyer]

I have yet to hear about a guy taking greenies who wasn't likely taking steroids, too.

Earlier today Goose Gossage (who shouldn't be in there, unless there's a 'neat moustaches' exhibit to stuff he and Rollie into) made some comment about being glad that they're keeping all these guys out because it would taint the legacies of Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, etc. Yes, Willie Mays, that paragon of non-chemically enhanced virtue.

[abailey3313]

Originally Posted by rpriske

If it isn't clear (yeah, right) this anti-steroid thing really annoys me. I am perfectly happy that they have been made illegal and go ahead and throw the book at anyone who breaks the rules now, but we are talking about players using steroids during a time when they were AT LEAST tacitly encouraged. The league wanted it. The owners wanted it. Yet now that the public perception has shifted, those players are being ostracized. It is absolutely ridiculous.

I'm with you. My hope is that these are "punishment ballots" and eventually the voters will let these guys through. I don't know why, but for some reason there's sentiment that getting in on your first try matters. Using that logic, it would make sense that the voters would try to make a statement this year with these particular candidates.

The more troubling thing to me is that it would seem some votes were held back based purely on suspicion. I've reached the point where I don't see much sense in arguing whether or not steroid users should be enshrined. We all have our opinions and they're unlikely to change, and even if there is room for a shift, I don't have anything particularly compelling to say that I feel could sway someone. But Piazza and Bagwell, for instance, are completely different from Bonds, Clemens, and McGwire. If someone didn't vote for them because they didn't think the player's merits warranted it, okay. But if steroids was a factor, that's a problem, because now we're punishing guys based on our own assumptions.

[ihatenames]

Originally Posted by abailey3313

I'm with you. My hope is that these are "punishment ballots" and eventually the voters will let these guys through. I don't know why, but for some reason there's sentiment that getting in on your first try matters. Using that logic, it would make sense that the voters would try to make a statement this year with these particular candidates.

The more troubling thing to me is that it would seem some votes were held back based purely on suspicion. I've reached the point where I don't see much sense in arguing whether or not steroid users should be enshrined. We all have our opinions and they're unlikely to change, and even if there is room for a shift, I don't have anything particularly compelling to say that I feel could sway someone. But Piazza and Bagwell, for instance, are completely different from Bonds, Clemens, and McGwire. If someone didn't vote for them because they didn't think the player's merits warranted it, okay. But if steroids was a factor, that's a problem, because now we're punishing guys based on our own assumptions.

I think a lot of it is not wanting to reward guys just because they didn't get caught. That's how tainted that era was. I get the line of thinking and I know it's not really fair, but it is a reality since this is not a court of law.

I think some of the writer's solution to the problem is to just keep everyone out. That I think is wrong. I instead choose to look purely at the numbers. Take Sosa for example. Sure 600 homeruns was great but for his entire career was he significantly better than his peers? To me the answer is no. is Bonds? Yes.

Bottomline, I believe the burden of policing the game is on baseball itself. If baseball didn't want these players to gather these numbers they should have done something about it earlier and stopped it. Baseball has the power to keep players off the ballot. I don't think it is for the writers to suddenly come in and be judge and jury in terms of policing the game. I understand not everyone feels that way but that's how I feel about it.

[swampdragon]

Originally Posted by magnet

swampy, would you have voted for Mantle/Aaron or any of the other greenie users?

Yes. I believe there's a canyon of difference between greenies and steroids. Steroids turned a run of the mill 37 year old Hall of Fame outfielder on the decline into Babe Ruth in his prime (Bonds), a pitcher who was losing his fastball and who had been traded into a guy with his fastball back who won multiple more Cy Youngs (Clemens), and most recently a journeyman 4th outfielder into a batting title winner (Melky). Bonds and Clemens have the stats they have because they cheated, and it's impossible to let enough air out of those stats to normalize them against players who were playing clean, whether they were playing at the same time or you're making historical comparisons. I've seen no evidence attributing similar effects to greenies, which are more performance enabling than enhancing, as anyone who has pulled all nighters in college can tell you.

In addition to that, Bonds in particular has ruined the greatest records in the game, and he holds them only because he used steroids. The Hall of Fame is baseball's greatest honor, and I don't want to see this guy honored in any way. It's a fraud on the game, and I'd be very happy if Bonds was banned from baseball and made ineligible like Pete Rose. If I could name one thing that would let us get back to normal HOF voting behavior, that would be what would do the most good.

[magnet]

Didn't Aaron hold the record because of his use of greenies? Ruth held the record because of segregation.

And for that matter, peformance-enabling is just as much an effect as performance-enhancing. If it weren't for greenies, Mantle would have MUCH fewer HR, for example.

[swampdragon]

I can simulate the effects of greenies by going to bed on time instead of carousing all night, or by drinking several cups of coffee. The distorting effect of the roids is just much greater. It's the difference between taking 5 hour energy before a test and paying someone else to take it for me.

[stannis]

It seems a shame for someone such as Biggio (who I wouldn't necessarily have as a first round inductee myself, but still deserves a fair hearing) that this ballot - and, quite possibly, every one from now on - has been monopolised by the steroids issue.

If Major League Baseball took a retroactive stance, such as disqualifying players from holding records, adjusting their stats, or stripping them of titles or awards, then the case would be more complicated, but until they do so the issue of Bonds seems fairly simple: he is, with or without steroids, one of the greatest players ever, and quite possibly one of the most significant individuals in the whole history of baseball - for better and for worse. Exclude him, and you have to start asking what other moral issues the Hall is going to take a stance on.

If there's any fear that inducting him is somehow endorsing what he did, or turning a blind eye to it, the Hall of Fame could always* hang a giant plaque next to his cap explaining about steroids, or put all players tarred with the steroids brush in a special wing of the museum: after all, a museum of baseball history at some stage has to confront what happened when curious kids ask in the future why the 90s-00s saw such increases in power. They could even have that South Park clip of Jimmy screaming "liars! cheats! frauds!" in the introduction video.

* Having never been to the Hall of Fame, I don't know how the museum actually works, with regards to acknowledging the darker parts of baseball's history, or whether the legacy of, for example, racism, is ever mentioned in connection with any inductees. If it's a museum, I would expect it to; if it's a temple, maybe not so much.