1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

2020 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Della9250, Jul 9, 2019.

  1. justgladtobehere

    justgladtobehere Well-Known Member

    I think it was the big checks he got twice a month that made his dick hard.

    This is from 2007, but I think he knew what he was doing 9 years earlier.

    For Selig and Baseball, It Was a Very Good Year

  2. qtlaw

    qtlaw Well-Known Member

    I was amazed at Bonds’ hitting but personally disliked Home Run Derby in every game.
  3. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    Why is it a problem? Each writer has his own criteria, no different than how much one writer weighs WAR or OPS vs how much another weighs them. If 50 percent of the writers think, "hmm, it seems pretty clear that Bonds cheated, and there doesn't seem to be any evidence that Griffey did the same, so I'm going to vote for Griffey but not Bonds," and the other 50 percent decide to vote for both, where is the issue? The only person that's a problem for is Bonds.

    Do you think there's going to be an overwhelming majority of voters who will see a power spike or hear a rumor and decide that's enough evidence?
    Fred siegle likes this.
  4. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    I think there are enough to potentially keep a guy out without good reason.
  5. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    Do you have an example of a guy who has been kept out based on rumor and innuendo who you think should be in?
  6. sgreenwell

    sgreenwell Well-Known Member

    Seven tries for Bagwell seems like a bit much.
  7. Della9250

    Della9250 Well-Known Member

    So was the fourth time for Piazza
  8. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    Aren't both of those guys in the Hall of Fame?
  9. Della9250

    Della9250 Well-Known Member

    They are, but the rumor and innuendo pushed back their timelines -- in Bagwell's case almost knocked him off the ballot -- and the domino effect of that hurts the candidates of others. If Piazza is a first-ballot guy like he should have been the year they didn't induct anyone, then that opens up slots and votes for other guys -- instead voters had to spend three extra years not voting for other deserving guys.

    There have also been voters who have said -- I won't vote for anyone in that entire era because I can't tell who did and who didn't
  10. sgreenwell

    sgreenwell Well-Known Member

    I mean, part of the problem here is a time thing - We don't know if Clemens and/or Bonds are going to be kept out, because they still have time left on the ballot.
  11. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    This is a mess that is attributable to a combination of things, including that MLB hasn't addressed it very well. I still don't think there is any good way at this point, though, so that leaves voters to address it individually. On the one hand, that doesn't establish a standard, but on the other hand, it keeps it the way it always has been, a matter of opinion, and opinions vary and are formed from all kinds of factors.

    This is just me musing, and maybe others won't agree and that is fine, but given the messiness of it, many of the outcomes have actually had a bit of rhyme and reason to them. Guys never implicated get in. Guys who were caught languish. And guys for whom there was a lot of smoke, but no proof, are withering before getting in. You brought up Bagwell. He was never caught. At the same time, almost everyone who was paying attention strongly suspected he used -- for a number of circumstancial reasons. I think the voting in the aggregate found a line with him, in that if there are going to be a fair number of voters for whom PEDs are a disqualifier, there was enough smoke around Bagwell for it to be an issue. Ultimately, though, he wasn't ever caught. The fact that it took 7 tries seems to acknowledge the smoke around him. The fact that he actually got in seems to acknowledge that nothing definitive can be stuck to him.

    Maybe all of that changes at some point soon as people become more and more inured to the PEDs. But right now, if you go player by player (on the ones who would be no brainers without PEDs being an issue), there does seem to be a pattern to who is being shut out, who has to wait and who is sliding in easily.
    Fred siegle and bigpern23 like this.
  12. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    Really, aside from the Veterans Committee allowing in schmoes like Baines, the HOF election process is basically fine. It's reviled for reasons I don't really understand, but the writers mostly seem to get it right. I wouldn't let in as many guys as they do, but there are really very few egregious errors (in or out) when you consider how many ballplayers have passed through MLB.
    Fred siegle likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page