Selig on Letterman: The burden is on the writers

Heinie Groh, Ray Dandridge, Pie Traynor, Judy Johnson and, of course, Buck Weaver would tend to push for consideration as well.

 

i know it's not the point of this thread, but you can argue that santo is
better than pie traynor or eddie matthews?

 

Only if you're a Cubbie fanboi. Otherwise, no.

 

i was kind of stunned at what i was reading that i missed you mentioned
even more guys above. i don't think santo's kids would argue that he was
the 2nd best 3B ever when he retired. i

 

Bless you, Slappy.

(That said, Weaver doesn't sniff the Hall, even by deadball standards. If he plays in the majors until 1932 rather than the Chicago semipro leagues, different story ... )

 

I agree completely. This burden is only on the writers because Selig and the owners dragged ass on bringing in any kind of real ban or testing on PEDs. Now that they have moved on he is letting the writers decide their place in history. Huge passing of the buck. If I was a voter (which i am not) I almost vote all of them in just to spite him.

Unfortunately I don't see how you can't not vote them in. Unless we know for certain everyone who did and who didn't - beyond a shadow of a doubt - I don't think you can keep any of them out. I don't think an asterisk is needed either. People will remember who they are. The fact that Ty Cobb's legend has lived the way it has will ensure that the likes of Bonds and Clemens will be remebered for their cheating. This era will be known as the steroid era as much as other eras of the sport (i.e. the Deadball era) and unfortunately that means everyone is lumped into the era.

 

As far as Santo, he's probably in the lower half of the top 10 among 3Bs. Ahead of Groh, sure. Top 5? Maybe when he retired. Maybe. (Matthews, Baker and Traynor were definitely ahead of him and Robinson, his contemporary, was also way ahead. If you count Negro Leaguers Dandridge and Judy J. -- and remember, Paige and Gibson were already in the HOF by the time Santo retired -- then he's still on the back end.)

After Santo retired, you're looking at Schmidt -- the best 3B ever, without a doubt, no question, unequivocally, far and away (is that clear enough? ) -- and Brett. Boggs is up there. Chipper is in the conversation.

That's 10 right there, and I don't think Santo has a case over any of them. All pretty clear Hall of Famers.

Santo's next in line, though, in front of a group like Cey, Boyer, Gardner, Groh, Kell, Keltner, Nettles. So is he the best third baseman not in the Hall? I think that's fair to say.

Should he be in (via the Puckett exception)? Some days I say yes. But not every day.

 

Hard to believe it took this long for someone to say the obvious: This is exactly why the BBWAA should get the hell out of voting for the Hall and for awards. It isn't our job to rubberstamp (or refuse to rubberstamp) the careers of Steroid Era players. But the BBWAA will give up its little perk the day after the Apocalypse, because voting makes its members feel important.
And let's pre-empt the whole "who's-better-qualified" argument. It doesn't matter. It's not our problem.
We are, at least in theory, journalists.

 

I have no huge problems with any of this. But Santo's statistics, when compared with other third basemen -- especially of his era -- make him a Hall of Famer.

 

I agree with the aforementioned assessment that if the burden is on the writers, then put Rose on the ballot and let the writers decide his fate as well.

 

Pete Rose agreed to a lifetime suspension from baseball.

 

Agree wholeheartedly with every word here. And I am a voter.

After the Mitchell Report came out, I decided that I'm just going to vote based on the on-field performance, regardless of who I think did or didn't use steroids, since I don't know.

I always cite the example of Mike Piazza, who I think everyone around baseball is pretty certain was a steroid user, but his supplier had the good sense not to get arrested, so we're supposed to just say he's clean?

To me, Piazza and Clemens are the same. They both fall somewhere between positively innocent and positively guilty, and I'm not sure where the line is there over which you can put one in and leave the other out.