Alomar, Blyleven are in

From Buster Olney's Twitter:

Jeff Bagwell's vote percentage is stunningly low for someone who clearly has Hall of Fame numbers -- but tied to no evidence of PED use. If anybody thinks there will be a softening toward the players from the steroid era, today's announcement tells you a lot of voters think of themselves as the keepers of the sports. That's not a ledge we should be out on.

 

To counter, I would say that sportswriters got an absurd and irrational amount of blame for not exposing the Steroids Era sooner and "doing nothing about it" because we liked home runs.

Seems like we're overcompensating now, which really isn't any better.

 

I didn't see a question in the post I responded to.

 

I've HEARD the observation made that Bagwell has shrunk considerably since his playing days. Objective commentary welcome.

 

OK, the AC in the office is out today; my brain is only working at 50 percent.

 

Try that Ryan.

 

Can't cut and paste with the phone...Sea Bass, good question about the HIV allegations. I didn't think about that.

Then again, the allegations haven't gone away, yet he still got 90 per cent this year. Who knows?

And the assessment of writers playing God is an apt one. Show me a writer who has lived a completely flawless life and I'll still say he/she has no right to sit in judgment of whether or not Roberto Alomar was morally fit to enter the Hall of Fame on the first ballot. If he belonged on the basis of his playing ability - and no one can plausibly argue that he didn't belong - then he should have been there a year ago. The end.

 

So answer my question Double J.

 

Tough to answer. One of the reasons people are forced to wait it out is because there are limits on how many people can be voted in each year, correct? I can kinda-sorta understand that. I mean, you don't want 15 long, boring speeches every year.

It's when the voters take it upon themselves to hold a voter out for dumb, self-serving reasons (no one deserves to be a first-ballot HOFer, no player deserves to get EVERY vote, I'm gonna play God and punish this player for what he did 20 years ago by not voting for him THIS year, but I'll vote him in next year, etc...) that bothers me and makes the voters look like fucking idiots.

 

Ryan:

You can vote for up to 10 players on every ballot. There never have been 10 guys voted in at one time. Most writers do not vote for 10 players a year.

Therefore: not an answer.

Yes or no is the answer.

 

I don't believe that, no. I accept that many players are reevaluated over time. My problem is when a clear-cut HOFer is held back due to voter stupidity and/or false morality.

 

You are assuming stupidity/false moral judgment. You don't know whay 15 voters didn't vote for player x in his first year.