Hall of fame voting

[MerrittsMustache]

I think Le Batard is a blow hard antagonist...but in a good way, unlike Skip Bayless who just sucks at life.  I don't care for Le Batard's schtick but I do think he is general very correct in his opinions.  I thought he absolutely pointed out the hypocrisy that is HOF voting.

The biggest issue in the voting is the old boy network "making a stand" against PEDs.  Since baseball didn't bother to test until 2007 (NFL started in 1984 I think) there is no way to define the era's timeline.  I'm willing to bet there are a number of players that did PEDs in the Hall already, maybe not steroids but certain uppers or HGH or something.  If they feel strongly about this, then put something in the hall about the PED era and shut up about it.

MLB looked the other way on PEDs for a long, long time because the HR chases were great for the game and helped bring back fans after the strike wiped out the WS. The HOF-worthy players from that era (Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, etc) all deserve to be enshrined. Baseball allowed them to use PEDs without consequence. Going back now, acting high and mighty while claiming to be protecting the sanctity of the game and the HOF is hypocrisy in its highest form.

Becoming a HOFer can mean big bucks. Question for the lawyers...Could a HOF-caliber PED guy sue the HOF and/or BBWAA and/or MLB for excluding him? Would there be grounds for that? Ex post facto or something along those line? (Pardon my ignorance)

[mu03eng]

MLB looked the other way on PEDs for a long, long time because the HR chases were great for the game and helped bring back fans after the strike wiped out the WS. The HOF-worthy players from that era (Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, etc) all deserve to be enshrined. Baseball allowed them to use PEDs without consequence. Going back now, acting high and mighty while claiming to be protecting the sanctity of the game and the HOF is hypocrisy in its highest form.

Becoming a HOFer can mean big bucks. Question for the lawyers...Could a HOF-caliber PED guy sue the HOF and/or BBWAA and/or MLB for excluding him? Would there be grounds for that? Ex post facto or something along those line? (Pardon my ignorance)

The lawsuit aspect is interesting...I'm not a lawyer nor did a stay in a Holiday Inn Express, but I would think that would be extremely difficult to prove the reason for the denial.  It would have to be someone like Bonds who is a statistical shoe in.  I mean if Ty Cobb is in the hall, one of the most despicable human beings in sports history, then we can put jag bags like Bonds in.

[WI inferiority Complexes]

I'm willing to bet there are a number of players that did PEDs in the Hall already, maybe not steroids but certain uppers or HGH or something.  If they feel strongly about this, then put something in the hall about the PED era and shut up about it.

There are dozens of players in the Hall who used greenies, amphetamines, etc., that is well known.

As for players who used steroids in the Hall, I've always been suspicious of Rickey Henderson, who played with the early 90's A's team.  The MLB writer Tom Boswell said he knows of at leats one HOFer who drank "Canseco milkshakes," and I think he my have been referring to Rickey.

I don't like this feeling, because R. Henderson is one of my all-time favorites.

[mu03eng]

There are dozens of players in the Hall who used greenies, amphetamines, etc., that is well known.

As for players who used steroids in the Hall, I've always been suspicious of Rickey Henderson, who played with the early 90's A's team.  The MLB writer Tom Boswell said he knows of at leats one HOFer who drank "Canseco milkshakes," and I think he my have been referring to Rickey.

I don't like this feeling, because R. Henderson is one of my all-time favorites.

I think part of the issue is we have framed the PED era as "cheating".  Malcolm Gladwell has a very interesting take, pointing out that we make distinctions between using cordizone to promote healing and HGH to promote healing, why?  PEDs are only cheating because we've arbitrarily decided they were.  Besides MLB looked the other way so why should you feel squimish about a guy "playing within the rules" at the time

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2013/09/out-loud-malcolm-gladwell-case-for-doping.html

[CTWarrior]

Acknowledging my Tiger bias, but Jack Morris and Alan Trammel should be in. 

Trammell definitely yes.  He is essentially the same player in quality as Larkin and Ozzie Smith, both of whom sailed in.  I really don't understand why he is not getting more support.  He got jobbed out of the MVP in 1987.  That would have gone a long way toward shoring up his HOF credentials.

I have the same tough time with Morris that a lot of people do.  Never had a sub 3.00 ERA in an era when that was not uncommon and the mark of a good pitcher.  3.90 ERA in his era is nothing special (only 5% better than league average adjusted for ballpark for his career).  He was an above average pitcher and innings eater on high scoring teams.  Very good, but falls a touch short of my HOF line.  That said, I'll be surprised if he doesn't get in 3 years from now via the Veterans Committee, and that wouldn't be a travesty by any means.  He'd be far from the worst pitcher inducted.

[CTWarrior]

First I want to say congrats to Glavine, Thomas and Maddux for making the hall. Growing up Frank Thomas was far and away my favorite player and probably the reason im a Sox fan despite growing up on the north side of the city. That being said I hate the way MLB voters work. There is no reason Maddux should not have been a unanimous vote. Also I may be in the minority but I think Bonds should undoubtedly be in the hall. Even if he did take steroids it is damn near impossible to see a 90 mph fastball let alone hit one. Plus there were way more pitchers juiced up then hitters. I just feel like guys like Rose and Bonds should be in the Hall because even before Bonds ballooned he was still one of the best baseball players of his time.

I said this in another thread, but PEDS are causing guys not to get in and are causing weird voting results as some voters try to game the ballot because they want to vote for more than 10 guys.  I think Clemens and Bonds would have been no doubt HOFers without the juice, but it is impossible to say.  Bagwell and Piazza will make it eventually.  I'll bet a lot of writers are waiting as long as possible to see if any PED proof against those guys surfaces.

[GGGG]

The baseball HOF has become a joke. Gary Carter? Jim Rice? Bert Blyleven? Those guys are on the same level as Yogi Berra, Hank Aaron and Warren Spahn? Really?! Andre Dawson is my all-time favorite baseball player but even I can admit that he wasn't a HOFer.

But see no one is arguing that.  No one is saying that Gary Carter is as good as Yogi Berra...Jim Rice is as good as Hank Aaron, etc.

This is the nature of all Halls of Fame.  Even within a hall of fame, there is going to be a differentiation.  The question is, where should that differentiation be?  Right now there is 237 players.  Should it be only 20?  50?  100?

16,000 or so players have played in the MLB.  Is it unreasonable that only 1.5% of those players get enshrined?

[keefe]

The baseball HOF has become a joke. Bert Blyleven?

Bert Blyleven had one of the best curveballs, ever. He's #5 on the all-time K list with 3,700. That merits being in the Hall.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

I don't understand all the bitching about the HOF voting. They nailed it this year. I do agree with some posters that some of the people they're now calling "Hall of Famers" don't pass the smell test to me. Barry Larkin was a great player for a very long time but he just never struck me as a legendary player. Frankly, I know he's got the numbers, but neither did Blyleven. Same with Biggio, who I know a lot of people advocate for. And if you're gonna vote for Jim Rice, how are Dave Parker or Dale Murphy completely dismissed? The fact is, if you've ever been to Cooperstown, it's East Coast bias at its finest.

I do think Jack Morris belongs in the Hall, but not Alan Trammell. And no way does Lee Smith belong there...Bruce Sutter? Yes! Eckersley? Yes.

[Lennys Tap]

If you have a floor, whether it's at 20, 200 or 2000 players, there will be arguments about the last 2 or 20 or 200 to get in - that's ok, in fact it's part of the fun of being a baseball fan.

[keefe]

Barry Larkin was a great player for a very long time but he just never struck me as a legendary player.

Larkin is a Michigan grad. He belongs.

[keefe]

Quite frankly, the biggest outrage is that Sidd Finch has yet to be anointed. 168 MPH deserves enshrinement.

[Lennys Tap]

Quite frankly, the biggest outrage is that Sidd Finch has yet to be anointed. 168 MPH deserves enshrinement.

Best hoax/baseball story ever.

[keefe]

Best hoax/baseball story ever.

I believe 168 MPH speaks for itself. For one reason or another the Sidd Finch Story merits preservation.

[LloydMooresLegs]

Larkin is a Michigan grad. He belongs.

And kudos to Barry, who left Michigan 9 credits short, but went back 25 years later to earn his degree!  Let's see if his example influences Shane (though he will have two years to go).  Tough to finish those 2 years when you start out with a four year $1.5 million contract.

[warriorchick]

The HOF needs to be blown up and started from scratch. There's so much bad in there it's ridiculous.

I feel the same way about the Rock 'n Roll HOF.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

I feel the same way about the Rock 'n Roll HOF.

good call Chick.  RnR HOF is a complete joke and it's only been around for like 20 years.  They should call the the "I had more than 1 good record club."

[LloydMooresLegs]

good call Chick.  RnR HOF is a complete joke and it's only been around for like 20 years.  They should call the the "I had more than 1 good record club."

Not exactly:

http://rockhall.com/exhibits/one-hit-wonders-songs-that-shaped-rock-and-roll/

[MU82]

One of the people I'm closest to is a Hall voter and he likes writing about it because few subjects engender as much discussion. For whatever reason, the Baseball HoF brings out incredible emotion and passion.

I might be biased, but I think the writers do a pretty darn good job. There can always be arguments about a few players, but of the couple hundred the BBWAA has voted in, there really is debate about only a tiny percentage.

[MerrittsMustache]

One of the people I'm closest to is a Hall voter and he likes writing about it because few subjects engender as much discussion. For whatever reason, the Baseball HoF brings out incredible emotion and passion.

I might be biased, but I think the writers do a pretty darn good job. There can always be arguments about a few players, but of the couple hundred the BBWAA has voted in, there really is debate about only a tiny percentage.

That's the thing. There shouldn't be arguments or a vote or debate or any of that. When a player retires, he's either a HOFer or he's not. Maddux, Glavine, Thomas? No doubt. Biggio, Morris, Bagwell? Maybe...which means they're all no's.

The current process is too complicated.

[GGGG]

That's the thing. There shouldn't be arguments or a vote or debate or any of that. When a player retires, he's either a HOFer or he's not. Maddux, Glavine, Thomas? No doubt. Biggio, Morris, Bagwell? Maybe...which means they're all no's.

The current process is too complicated.

You make it sound pretty cut-and-dried.  Even if you lift the bar higher, you are just lifting the "maybe" area higher.  You are always going to have debates.

[MerrittsMustache]

You make it sound pretty cut-and-dried.  Even if you lift the bar higher, you are just lifting the "maybe" area higher.  You are always going to have debates.

But there shouldn't be room for debate. It IS cut and dry.

Is there a debate about Maddux, Glavine or Thomas?

How about any of these first-ballot guys?
http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/First_Ballot_Hall_of_Famer

How about Cy Young or Joe Dimaggio? Yogi Berra, Rogers Hornsby or Eddie Matthews?

If there's a legitimate debate, the guy shouldn't be in the Hall. Period.

[shiloh26]

That's the thing. There shouldn't be arguments or a vote or debate or any of that. When a player retires, he's either a HOFer or he's not. Maddux, Glavine, Thomas? No doubt. Biggio, Morris, Bagwell? Maybe...which means they're all no's.

The current process is too complicated.

There's the rub, though.  To some folks, Jack Morris is a "no-doubter," because he pitched an unbelievable WS Game 7 and had a cool mustache.  Others feel his career numbers mean he's not a "no-doubter."  To some, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are "no-doubt" because, looking just at their accomplishments, they had two of the greatest careers in professional baseball history.  To others, the fact that they took PEDs removes them from all consideration.  That "no doubt" line will always mean different things to different people.  

[GGGG]

But there shouldn't be room for debate. It IS cut and dry.

Is there a debate about Maddux, Glavine or Thomas?

How about any of these first-ballot guys?
http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/First_Ballot_Hall_of_Famer

How about Cy Young or Joe Dimaggio? Yogi Berra, Rogers Hornsby or Eddie Matthews?

If there's a legitimate debate, the guy shouldn't be in the Hall. Period.

But you are looking at it through the lens of today's Hall of Fame.  But if you up the criteria, you just change the debate.

And frankly I don't really understand your "no debate, no hall" stance.  I mean why does it have to be that exclusive?

[Lennys Tap]

But there shouldn't be room for debate. It IS cut and dry.

Is there a debate about Maddux, Glavine or Thomas?

How about any of these first-ballot guys?
http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/First_Ballot_Hall_of_Famer

How about Cy Young or Joe Dimaggio? Yogi Berra, Rogers Hornsby or Eddie Matthews?

If there's a legitimate debate, the guy shouldn't be in the Hall. Period.

Who decides what the threshold is for a "legitimate debate"? Only first balloters? 80%? 90%? Unless you shrink it to a very, very small number, the guys at the bottom will look different that the guys at the top. Somebody graduates at the bottom of his class at MIT every year whether the class size is 50, 100, 200 or 1000.