2015 Baseball HOF ballot released

Drip, Sheffield was my 11th pick. I voted Bagwell, Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Johnson, Pedro, Piazza, Raines, Schilling, Smoltz.

 

I understand why you would go Schilling over Mussina, but disagree.

 

It depends how you define "linked to PED use." I absolutely believe PED suspicions have hurt Bagwell, even though they absolutely should not be holding him back. There is no evidence at all, but even suspicion is enough for some of these crusaders to misuse their ballots. Piazza also has the accusations against him.

 

There's any number of intelligent suggestions floating around the 'net, ranging from common sense tweaks to the blow-it-all-up-and-start-over approaches. The point being that the system in place has always been a patchwork, knee-jerk response to public criticism. The rules change announced in July, itself, was a way to defuse criticism from those living Hall-of-Famers vocal about not participating in future induction weekends if Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, etc. are elected.

The Hall of Fame has never thought about what a Hall-of-Famer should be, how to define that, how many there ought to be, how to identify and distinguish between those who are and those who aren't, or what qualifications those making such decisions should have. The system in place isn't even designed to produce an induction ceremony each year, which is quite incredible. (The Hall of Fame has had 7 years when no induction ceremonies were held, either because no elections were held or no one was elected.) The Hall of Fame has a long history of stubbornly avoiding critical thinking about the most essential questions underlying a Hall of Fame while constantly running away from their problems by trying to satiate one group or another. (If it's not the living HoFers, its MLB, or the BBWAA, etc.)

There are millions of baseball fans who deeply care about the Hall of Fame and what it represents to this and future generations, many of whom have put many more hours studying the institution, its history, and its electoral process - far more than the people on its Board of Directors have. I'd be open to any sensible reform that sought to address the core issues, whether I ultimately agreed with it or not. The Hall of Fame isn't interested in even having that discussion.

 

Guy, the Schilling-Mussina comparison is a very tough call if you have to pick just one. In the end, I was swayed by Schilling's postseason performances, which demonstrate in cold type his considerable ability to perform under pressure at any time.

 

As I said, I understand. For the HOF, I'll take steady regular season excellence over high stakes peaks every time. To use an extreme example, when starting a team you'll take Glavine, for a single game you would take Cone. While I think Cone was not taken seriously enough as a HOF candidate (though ultimately, I agree he falls a bit short) he clearly needs to get in line well behind Glavine. As I said, I can be convinced maybe on Schilling's merit, but the up compared to Mussina aren't enough for me to counteract the inconsistencies and holes in his career.

 

Piazza is definitely linked to PEDs. Bagwell probably is somewhat as well. Obviously, so are Clemens, Bonds and Sheffield.

That leaves Randy Johnson, Pedro, Smoltz, Biggio, Raines as well as some guys who are borderline.

They can vote for 10. What's the problem?

 

Mussina had more victories and innings pitched. Schilling had more strikeouts, a lower ERA and a lower WHIP. You can make arguments to attack the differences in any of those numbers, with the possible exception of the strikeouts. Schilling had higher highs and Mussina was more consistent. All of that puts them close enough in the regular season that Schilling's postseason dominance makes him the better candidate.

 

Just to add...

When the Hall of Fame first opened its doors in 1939, it had seen four BBWAA elections to that point. The following players had been inducted: Pete Alexander, Ty Cobb, Eddie Collins, Walter Johnson, Willie Keeler, Nap Lajoie, Christy Mathewson, Babe Ruth, George Sisler, Tris Speaker, Honus Wagner and Cy Young. That's 12 BBWAA inductees in four years, an average of three per year. At the time, three BBWAA inductees per year was widely thought to be an appropriate annual total.

In the 66 regular BBWAA elections since the Hall of Fame opened its doors, that body has elected 101 more men, for an average of 1.5 per year, half what was considered, at the Hall's founding, appropriate. In the succeeding 75 years since the Hall of Fame opened its doors, the BBWAA has elected 3 or more in a given year just 8 times. If they do so again next month, it will be only the fifth election in my own lifetime.

None of this takes into account the explosion of the talent pool and increased competition from a 16-team North American white man's game back in 1939.

Had the BBWAA held annual elections throughout its history - it has not - and averaged 3 inductees per year, the BBWAA would have elected former MLB players through this winter's election, which is almost exactly the total of all players (including veterans/era committee and negro league committee selections).

 

Maybe they should make it like the NFL and put 5-6 in a year.

 

I hate to say this about my fellow voters, but there are those among them who think it's great when players don't get elected.

 

If it makes you feel any better, you are just confirming something most of us already realized.