2013 MLB Hall of Fame Screechfest

[BB Bobcat]

That's a reasonable approach Joe.

I happen to think the more time passes the less harshly we'll view the steroid users. Especially after someone who is already in gets busted, as I suspect will happen.

 

[LongTimeListener]

There's next to no evidence from Bagwell's HR totals that suggest steroids.

At 23 he hit 15. He then went 18-20-39-21 (in 114 games)-31-43-34-42-47 (peaked at 32)-39-31-39-27.

He hit those 27 homers as a 36 year old. Then hit three in 39 games at 37 and his career was done. That seems like natural progression.

1) You're assuming you know when he would have started.

2) Going from 39 to 27 to 3 (and done) just as the cat gets out of the bag and testing is implemented is suggestive of something.

 

[JC]

There's next to no evidence from Bagwell's HR totals that suggest steroids.

At 23 he hit 15. He then went 18-20-39-21 (in 114 games)-31-43-34-42-47 (peaked at 32)-39-31-39-27.

He hit those 27 homers as a 36 year old. Then hit three in 39 games at 37 and his career was done. That seems like natural progression.

No, none at all. Other than the era, his teammates, his physique there is nothing that would lead you to believe Bagwell used.

I don't care if he did or didn't but let's not be so naive. It was an even a playing field as any other in baseball. I would love to know what people believe was a clean and non tainted era?

So what are the pious and almighty going to do with the next wave of PED cheats and adderall users?

 

[Dick Whitman]

As I'm sure I've mentioned here before, the guy for me who symbolizes the problem of using steroids as a major factor is Mike Piazza.

What are you going to do with him?
Do you believe he was clean?
Do you want to penalize him for suspicion?

He and Bagwell would be the two that would give me the most trouble... I think both used, but I don't know that I would feel comfortable keeping either out of Cooperstown based on those suspicions.

I don't have any issues with keeping McGwire, Sosa or Palmeiro out, even though Sosa's use was never proven.

Sosa failed a test. It came out later, a la A-Rod and Ortiz.

 

[Della9250]

I wasn't talking about the other stuff. I'm saying if you look at his HR totals, there isn't a year or two spike so far out of wack wit the career numbers that suggests it. His arc follows a traditional rise and fall just going by the numbers.

Now if you want to argue that the middle numbers should read 21-33-24-23-37 instead of 31-43-34-42-47 because of steroids, I get that. But there is no Brady Anderson one-year jump. There is no Bondsian' jump of 30 in one season.

Is it so far-fetched to believe a 25-year old who could hit 20 homers and be the MVP a year later could get to 43 in four years or 47 in seven?

 

[Riptide]

I laughed when I saw Royce Clayton's name.
He might have trouble making the Hall of Good.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Bonds: "I do really care. I may say I don’t, but I do really care. I’ve been through a lot in my life so not too many things bother me. Making the Hall of Fame, would it be something that’s gratifying because of what I’ve sacrificed? Sure. Baseball has been a big part of our lives. We’ve sacrificed our bodies. It’s the way we made our living."

http://blog.sfgate.com/giants/2012/11/28/barry-bonds-in-new-interview-on-his-hall-of-fame-bid-i-dont-understand-all-the-controversy-were-having-about-it/

Also, he admits that he could have been less of a **** and done some other stuff differently.

He's pretty good at being a nice guy when he wants something.

 

[Joe Williams]

That's a reasonable approach Joe.

I happen to think the more time passes the less harshly we'll view the steroid users. Especially after someone who is already in gets busted, as I suspect will happen.

I happen to think you're right on time softening the views on the users. And that's a great point as to why it might happen.

Or one suspected user will get in, after which he'll serve as an "If he's in, why isn't _____ in?" door holder for others. Maybe there are enough who'll vote for Bonds and Clemens this year, and the softening of views will commence with next year's ballot.

Me, I'm waiting and using the time the induction process allows. There's no rush.

For instance, I waited 14 years with Jim Rice (didn't think he belonged, not a PED issue) ... and then didn't vote for him in year 15 either. :)

 

[Gehrig]

Holy smokes, the next 3-4 classes are loaded. you are going to end up with 20 great candidates backlogged on some ballots in a few years.

Maddux, Thomas, Glavine, Mussina, Kent in 2014
Pedro, Randy, Smoltz, Sheffield in 2015.

So the next three ballots will include: Biggio, Bonds, Piazza, Clemens, Schilling, Sosa, Maddux, Glavine, Kent, Mussina, F. Thomas, Pedro, Randy, Smoltz, Sheffield, Martinez, McGwire, Palmerio, Raines, Trammel, Walker, and other guys who garner at least some support, such as McGriff, Morris, Lofton, Mattingly. L. Smith, and more. Griffey in 2016.

Those candidates perceived to be borderline or marginal will have to wait a long time to get in.

I didn't think Kent would get in, at least not right away. I figured Mussina, Pedro, and Smoltz would have to wait at least till their 2nd year on the ballot. If Bagwell had to wait, Thomas may even have to wait due to thus far unfounded steroid suspicions. And as a confirmed (and non-legendary) roider, Sheffield's probably not getting in at all. Bear in mind that the BBWAA's electing as many as 4 players in the same year is rare, having only occurred 3 times: 1936 (5), 1947 (4), and 1955 (4)

Predictions:

2013
75 and up: Biggio, Morris
50 to <75: Bagwell, Piazza
25 to <50: Bonds, Clemens, Raines, Smith, Trammell
5 to <25: E. Martinez, Mattingly, McGriff, McGwire, Murphy*, Schilling, Sosa, Walker
<5: Lofton, Mesa, Palmeiro, Wells, Williams, etc.

2014
75 and up: Glavine, Maddux, Thomas
50 to <75: Bagwell, Piazza
25 to <50: Bonds, Clemens, Raines, Smith, Trammell
5 to <25: Kent, E. Martinez, Mattingly, McGwire, Mussina, Schilling, Sosa, Walker
<5: Gonzalez, McGriff, etc.

2015
75 and up: Bagwell, Johnson, Piazza
50 to <75: P. Martinez, Smoltz
25 to <50: Bonds, Clemens, Raines, Smith, Trammell
5 to <25: E. Martinez, Mattingly*, McGwire, Mussina, Schilling, Sheffield, Sosa, Walker
<5: Delgado, Garciaparra, Kent, etc.

2016
75 and up: Griffey, Hoffman, P. Martinez
50 to <75: Raines, Smoltz
25 to <50: Bonds, Clemens, Smith, Trammell*
5 to <25: E. Martinez, McGwire, Mussina, Pettitte, Schilling, Sheffield, Sosa, Walker
<5: Edmonds, Moyer, Wagner, etc.

2017
75 and up: Raines, Smoltz
50 to <75: Bonds, Clemens, Smith*
25 to <50: E. Martinez, McGwire, Mussina
5 to <25: Posada, Ramirez, Schilling, Sheffield, Sosa, Walker
<5: Pettitte, etc.

 

[Della9250]

I don't think there's any way that Hoffman goes in on the first ballot, unless a vast majority of the electorate changes in five years.

And I think your underselling Kent on the projections.

 

[Hank_Scorpio]

Isn't this Morris' last year of eligibility? If it isn't, he only has a couple years left.

 

[Della9250]

Dale Murphy is in his last year. Morris has this year and next.

 

[Hank_Scorpio]

Much obliged. After I posted that, I checked his B-R page.

He last played in 1994. Did he delay filing retirement papers? He signed with Cincinnati in Dec. 1994, but never played with them. So if he was cut in Spring Training 1995, wouldn't he have been done in 2010?

 

[outofplace]

Guys I voted for before and will again this time: Morris, Raines, Trammell.
Guy new to the ballot I'll probably vote for now: Biggio.
Guys I'll wait on deeper into their 15 years of eligibility, to have max info and context: Any alleged or suspected PED user. For me, Year 15 is more important for them than Year 1.

So you know Biggio (and for that matter Morris and Raines and Trammell) didn't take steroids? How do you come by this knowledge?

Well, I can wait on Biggio too, if that consistency would please you.

Era in which the other three played suggests recreational drugs (Raines) more than PEDs.

This isn't a "beyond reasonable doubt" threshold like a court of law. And the enshrinement process allows for 15 years worth of consideration for context or any other reason. For me, PEDs have made that period for great disclosure more necessary than it used to be. I'd be happy if there were NO first-ballot inductees, if that's the price to be paid.

I'm guessing you didn't earn a ballot by printing things you can't back up, but that's basically what you are doing when you leave guys off your ballot who deserve to be in based on suspicion and unsubstantiated allegations.

By your reasoning, you should just not vote for anybody from the entire "steroid era" until their final year on the ballot, because aside from the guys who have failed a test or admitted to use, it is ridiculous to claim you know that anybody is clean.

Bagwell and Piazza are the best examples. I believe both are Hall of Famers without the accusations and I get the impression that you agree on that point. If you do, unless you have actual evidence that they used, your ballot is a joke without them.

 

[JC]

He is, if he's not the HOF is a joke

 

[Della9250]

Much obliged. After I posted that, I checked his B-R page.

He last played in 1994. Did he delay filing retirement papers? He signed with Cincinnati in Dec. 1994, but never played with them. So if he was cut in Spring Training 1995, wouldn't he have been done in 2010?

Five-year wait put him on the 2000 ballot for the first time.

 

[Della9250]

It obvious Pedro won't be a first-ballot choice. He only has 219 wins. I mean the guy had the nerve to wn 20 games just twice.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

He is, if he's not the HOF is a joke

Agree completely.

 

[Dick Whitman]

FWIW, Jeff Pearlman wrote in his Clemens book that Piazza told beat writers off-the-record that he dabbled in steroids.

So it's not like there's nothing tying him to them whatsoever.

It's relatively thin, but it's not nothing.

 

[Gehrig]

I don't think there's any way that Hoffman goes in on the first ballot, unless a vast majority of the electorate changes in five years.

And I think your underselling Kent on the projections.

Hoffman's getting in the Hall (and on the first ballot) was perhaps an expression of cynicism on my part with regard to the non-sabermetric approach taken by many BBWAA voters. I figured they'd see his 601 saves and automatically vote him in on that alone. I don't consider him Hall-worthy.

I may indeed be underselling Kent. I figured he'd perform poorly in the voting because of his bad attitude and because I thought he wasn't generally perceived as Hall-worthy in the media. Unlike Hoffman, I think Kent is at least marginally Hall-worthy.

I suspect Pedro may be bounced on the first ballot due to his incident with Zimmer.