2022 Hall of Fame

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

9 hours ago, Hank Chinaski said:

I agree with you, except for the “Bonds probably” part

And that's fair. The "unknown" with Bonds will always be, would he have had the longevity without PED's. Doesn't matter to me.

[Wulaw Horn 19148]

4 hours ago, Cheeseweasel said:

And that's fair. The "unknown" with Bonds will always be, would he have had the longevity without PED's. Doesn't matter to me.

Yeah the longevity doesn’t matter. He would have been a HOF retiring in 1999. I don’t think anyone with 3 MVP’s has ever not been inducted right?

the number of guys with 3 MVP’s are very very few. 

[dcar00 14354]

17 hours ago, Lobo said:

Lucky for you, Jack Morris IS in the Hall of Fame.  

I scratch my head always and forever on Puckett and Baines.  I'm a sucker for longevity, and Puckett didn't have it.  Granted he packed a lot in to 12 seaons, but feel-good stories aren't what the Hall of Fame is for.  And Baines played a long time, but he didn't do that much while he was DH'ing and being an above-average hitter.  

Tommy John in an interesting case.  IIRC, he's got the most Wins and IP's of anybody not in the Hall not named Roger Clemens.  I wonder what the various selection committees rationale on him is these days.

Schilling should get in.  He's an asshole, sock is bullshit or not bullshit, Texans don't like him, whatever the fuck.  We can't kick people out of the Hall of Fame, so there's certainly more than enough guys in there whose careers he handily surpassed.  So he gets to join them.  Some committee will just put him down the road anyways, may as well try to do it proper.  

Please do not put Puckett and Baines in the same sentence.  Puckett is absolutely a no doubt HOFer.  Baines is a JAG who played 24 years.

averaged almost 200 hits a year for 12 years

.318 average at the time of retirement was highest for AL RH hitter since DiMaggio

won 6 GG

won 6 SS

top 7 in MVP voting 

if he plays until he is 40(he started late at 24) no doubt he gets 3000 hits.

should he have been first ballot, no, that is the only place sympathy for his eye issue came in to play.  and yes I am aware that he was accused(found not guilty) of some pretty bad stuff post HOF election.

 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

1 hour ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Yeah the longevity doesn’t matter.

This is my Munson argument. Dude was one of the greatest catchers of his era (and his era had Bench & Fisk). Would he be any more eligible if he played 5 more sub-par seasons? 

[Wulaw Horn 19148]

9 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

This is my Munson argument. Dude was one of the greatest catchers of his era (and his era had Bench & Fisk). Would he be any more eligible if he played 5 more sub-par seasons? 

Agreed.  Very few view Kofax as anything other than a top 20 pitcher all time.  He had what- a 6 or 7 year peak where he was awesome?  Some guys the peak is just that good where longevity doesn't matter.  Trout would be a sure fire guy if he retired today (provided he has played in parts of 10 years as is required for eligibility.  Bonds is in that same freakish category.

[dcar00 14354]

12 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

This is my Munson argument. Dude was one of the greatest catchers of his era (and his era had Bench & Fisk). Would he be any more eligible if he played 5 more sub-par seasons? 

I can go either way on Munson.  I think if you played a fairly full 10 seasons and is cut short(death/Puckett type deal) the longevity is fine.

IMO, Munson is better overall fielder than Simmons/Fisk, Fisk/Simmons better hitters.     Bench is a different class.  its basically him, pudge, and berra

If Munson plays 20 years like Simmons they probably have similar numbers so I'm OK with Munson getting in

crazy those 4 came up within 3 years of each other.

 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

1 minute ago, dcar00 said:

I can go either way on Munson.

It really depends on your view of The Hall. If you are a Big Hall guy, Munson is in. Small Hall, I can see the argument to keep him out. 

But the voters seem to bounce back and forth on what they want. Jim Thome is in despite never winning an MVP award? Fuck that. 

 

[dcar00 14354]

13 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

It really depends on your view of The Hall. If you are a Big Hall guy, Munson is in. Small Hall, I can see the argument to keep him out. 

But the voters seem to bounce back and forth on what they want. Jim Thome is in despite never winning an MVP award? Fuck that. 

 

the Vet committees have made it a Big hall already.  we jumped that Small Hall shark a while back. my opinion in the latest vet HOF class is none of them are truly Small Hall worthy.  in fact the only Small Hall guy IMO didn't make it.

obligatory - you are killing me..Smalls!

[dcar00 14354]

27 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

It really depends on your view of The Hall. If you are a Big Hall guy, Munson is in. Small Hall, I can see the argument to keep him out. 

But the voters seem to bounce back and forth on what they want. Jim Thome is in despite never winning an MVP award? Fuck that. 

 

thome benefitted from being non-juicer who hit 600 homers in the steroid era.  956 OPS and 147 OPS+ is damn solid.  I'm good with him in(especially if he didn't juice).  600 HR's for a non juicer is a very small club of 5 in the history of baseball.  

edit: in fact you could make the case he should have won the MVP in 2002 given that Rodriguez was probably juicing at that time.

Edited January 5, 2022 by dcar00

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

6 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

thome benefitted from being non-juicer who hit 600 homers in the steroid era.  956 OPS and 147 OPS+ is damn solid.  I'm good with him in(especially if he didn't juice).  600 HR's for a non juicer is a very small club of 5 in the history of baseball.  

I'm fine with it too, but rarely does anyone talk about Jim Thome as "one of the greats". He was an HR hitter who only led the league in HR's 1 time. Longevity = pumped up stats. 

This is more about me ranting that Munson is not in...

[dcar00 14354]

Just now, Cheeseweasel said:

I'm fine with it too, but rarely does anyone talk about Jim Thome as "one of the greats". He was an HR hitter who only led the league in HR's 1 time. Longevity = pumped up stats. 

This is more about me ranting that Munson is not in...

that's because he hit .276 and played a lot but less than half of his games at DH. 

He's a lot like Killebrew IMO.

[Hank Chinaski 6320]

To me Beltre kind of falls into the same category as Thome. He’ll get in and he should, but he finished in the top 5 of MVP voting twice in 21 seasons (2nd in ‘04 and 3rd in ‘12). He was an all-star 4 times in 21 years, for whatever that’s worth. In the 5-year stretch that spanned his age 26-30 seasons, he posted OPS+ of 93, 105, 112, 109, and 83. For his career, it was 116. He was a very good defensive player and a deserving HOFer, but he was generally never really thought of as one of the elite players (kinda like Thome). 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

34 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

He's a lot like Killebrew IMO.

First ever game I saw live was on August 17th, 1974. Redsox vs. Twins at Fenway. Killebrew hit a shot over the Green Monster.

Good times.

[Guest Lobo]

For the record, not saying longevity is the primary decider for induction.  But like it or not, it was a huge factor for many writers for decades.  The proof is there.  If you weren't terribly dominant for a short time, but just had above-average seasons for 16-18 years...you got the Call.  

Yes, there are plenty of guys that were just so damn filthy for just a decade or less, they got in.  There are those guys.  There are the supremely great ones that whooped all kinds of ass for 15-20 years period.  Helped too that for dozens of inductees, they began full time MLB play around age 20, where now the median age is more like 24.  Not saying you need to limp to retirement at 40 or 42.  But writers put a lot of emphasis on being really good, maybe not great for a long, long time.  

A lot of pitchers that I saw go in as a young kid eating, drinking, and sleeping the game (not to pick on these guys, they're just on tip of my brain)

Don Sutton.  First half of the 1970's, he was as good as any RHP in the NL.  But otherwise, not a dominating career at any other point.  But other than the strike '81 year, he throws 190+ IP for 20 seasons.  But he hit 300 W's and 3000 K's, but it took him an awfully long time to do it but he was rewarded by grinding it out.  His last 6 seasons, he was no better than a #3 starter, at best.  But he used those seasons to top those key benchmarks.  Again, really damn good pitcher but never had HOF caliber seasons, only 4 all-star nods, placed in Top 3 Cy Young voting just once.  3500 K's is impressive, but took 5,300 innings to get there.  Again, I know there are newer metrics out there, now but writer's didn't vote him on those.  They voted him on 22 outta 23 really, really damn good seasons.  

Bert Blyleven---hits the 3700 K club.  .534 career winning percentage, not great.  2 all-star games, twice in top 3 of Cy Young.  But 22 seasons of grinding it out as a #2 or #3 starter, and he finally gets the call.  '84-'87 was kinda his "dominant" window and it wasn't all that elite.  

Phil Niekro, Jim Kaat, there's a dozen others.  Maybe 3-5 truly elite years, well beyond that of most HOF pitchers.  But a 20-year grind of a resume that puts them over the top.  

Look at Robin Roberts, before my time but absolutely dominates the NL from 1950-56.  1957-1966, a full decade.  He wins more than 15 games just one more time, above 4.00 ERA, never leads the league in a single category, never sniffs another all-star game, record well below .500.  But he gets in because he just grinded it out to almost 290 wins. 

Hoyt Wilhelm is a relief example of this phenomenon.  I get that was an early "closer" before the role became what we know today.  But he was never that dominant.  Just did it for 21 seasons and 1,070 games so writers shrugged and said, "Okay, i guess..." 

Sutter is a head-scratcher.  Only 9 seasons as the closer.  And he was an all-start in 7 of those and truly dominant in most respects.  But 9 seasons of working twice a week is bullshit.  He's not a HOF'er. He's the opposite of longevity and his window of dominance is a question mark to enthusiasts still.  

Again, these are old school metrics, but those writers voted on what they saw at the time.  They didn't see ERA+.

So yeah, there's lots of ways to vote a guy in or out.  I'm merely pointing out they still reward, and likely always will, the 16 year+ guy that was always good, but never an era-defining guy at his position, sometimes not even an all-star.

[dcar00 14354]

58 minutes ago, Lobo said:

For the record, not saying longevity is the primary decider for induction.  But like it or not, it was a huge factor for many writers for decades.  The proof is there.  If you weren't terribly dominant for a short time, but just had above-average seasons for 16-18 years...you got the Call.  

Yes, there are plenty of guys that were just so damn filthy for just a decade or less, they got in.  There are those guys.  There are the supremely great ones that whooped all kinds of ass for 15-20 years period.  Helped too that for dozens of inductees, they began full time MLB play around age 20, where now the median age is more like 24.  Not saying you need to limp to retirement at 40 or 42.  But writers put a lot of emphasis on being really good, maybe not great for a long, long time.  

A lot of pitchers that I saw go in as a young kid eating, drinking, and sleeping the game (not to pick on these guys, they're just on tip of my brain)

Don Sutton.  First half of the 1970's, he was as good as any RHP in the NL.  But otherwise, not a dominating career at any other point.  But other than the strike '81 year, he throws 190+ IP for 20 seasons.  But he hit 300 W's and 3000 K's, but it took him an awfully long time to do it but he was rewarded by grinding it out.  His last 6 seasons, he was no better than a #3 starter, at best.  But he used those seasons to top those key benchmarks.  Again, really damn good pitcher but never had HOF caliber seasons, only 4 all-star nods, placed in Top 3 Cy Young voting just once.  3500 K's is impressive, but took 5,300 innings to get there.  Again, I know there are newer metrics out there, now but writer's didn't vote him on those.  They voted him on 22 outta 23 really, really damn good seasons.  

Bert Blyleven---hits the 3700 K club.  .534 career winning percentage, not great.  2 all-star games, twice in top 3 of Cy Young.  But 22 seasons of grinding it out as a #2 or #3 starter, and he finally gets the call.  '84-'87 was kinda his "dominant" window and it wasn't all that elite.  

Phil Niekro, Jim Kaat, there's a dozen others.  Maybe 3-5 truly elite years, well beyond that of most HOF pitchers.  But a 20-year grind of a resume that puts them over the top.  

Look at Robin Roberts, before my time but absolutely dominates the NL from 1950-56.  1957-1966, a full decade.  He wins more than 15 games just one more time, above 4.00 ERA, never leads the league in a single category, never sniffs another all-star game, record well below .500.  But he gets in because he just grinded it out to almost 290 wins. 

Hoyt Wilhelm is a relief example of this phenomenon.  I get that was an early "closer" before the role became what we know today.  But he was never that dominant.  Just did it for 21 seasons and 1,070 games so writers shrugged and said, "Okay, i guess..." 

Sutter is a head-scratcher.  Only 9 seasons as the closer.  And he was an all-start in 7 of those and truly dominant in most respects.  But 9 seasons of working twice a week is bullshit.  He's not a HOF'er. He's the opposite of longevity and his window of dominance is a question mark to enthusiasts still.  

Again, these are old school metrics, but those writers voted on what they saw at the time.  They didn't see ERA+.

So yeah, there's lots of ways to vote a guy in or out.  I'm merely pointing out they still reward, and likely always will, the 16 year+ guy that was always good, but never an era-defining guy at his position, sometimes not even an all-star.

this is a good summary.  I'm just saying puckett is not a maybe/maybe not guy.  he's a HOFer.

pitchers(especially starters) are weird when it comes to HOF IMO because the way they are used has changed so much over the years.

if guys went 9 innings a lot for the last 125 years it would be easier to reconcile them.  you had great starters go 9, then it went to 7 to 8.  now you have guys pitching 6 maybe 7 and -2-3 guys going 1 or 2.  I think they(starters) are getting less respect overall but the Kershaw's, Verlander's, Scherzer's of the world are getting more.

Its why a guy like Kaat is getting in on the vets committee.  he looks like Cy Young compared to a lot of the starters in today's game.   he did also pitch some when the mound was higher.

ERA+, WHIP etc. for starters is going to become more critical for HOF selection,  300 wins and 3K's is gonna be hard to come by in the future.

[dcar00 14354]

3 hours ago, Hank Chinaski said:

To me Beltre kind of falls into the same category as Thome. He’ll get in and he should, but he finished in the top 5 of MVP voting twice in 21 seasons (2nd in ‘04 and 3rd in ‘12). He was an all-star 4 times in 21 years, for whatever that’s worth. In the 5-year stretch that spanned his age 26-30 seasons, he posted OPS+ of 93, 105, 112, 109, and 83. For his career, it was 116. He was a very good defensive player and a deserving HOFer, but he was generally never really thought of as one of the elite players (kinda like Thome). 

I'm gonna quible with this a bit.  Beltre is 4th all time WAR 3rd baseman 93.5 and only DH'd in 156 games in his career.  11th all time in doubles.  His OBP is low(which is his biggest issue) and agree he never had a real mercurial season but his fielding makes up for that somewhat IMO.  5 GG's and dWAR sine 1969 is #1.

Thome DH'd about 40% of his games.

Beltre was fortunate to escape a long career with no significant injuries so that he could get to 3K hits.  all but one 3K hit player(non-juicer) who was eligible got in on his first ballot.  Biggio.

 

[Hank Chinaski 6320]

5 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

I'm gonna quible with this a bit.  Beltre is 4th all time WAR 3rd baseman 93.5 and only DH'd in 156 games in his career.  11th all time in doubles.  His OBP is low(which is his biggest issue) and agree he never had a real mercurial season but his fielding makes up for that somewhat IMO.  5 GG's and dWAR sine 1969 is #1.

Thome DH'd about 40% of his games.

Beltre was fortunate to escape a long career with no significant injuries so that he could get to 3K hits.  all but one 3K hit player(non-juicer) who was eligible got in on his first ballot.  Biggio.

 

Yeah, all good points. And to be clear, I think they’re both certain HOFers. I guess I just meant that they both had long, 20+ year careers (which allowed them to hit HOF milestones) and neither was generally regarded as one of the game’s elite players for any significant amount of time (Thome had one top-5 MVP finish in his career), even though they both had a few elite seasons. And yeah, Beltre had a lot of defensive value and Thome had little, but Thome was also a much better offensive player (147 career OPS+), so those kind of offset. 

And, yeah, I think Biggio is sort of in that boat also. He had a relatively short, clear peak from ‘94-‘99 (he had two top-5 MVP finishes in that span) with some productive (but not elite) years on either side of it. If he doesn’t hang on for 20 years to compile 3,000 hits, he’s probably not in.

I guess I just kind of think of these guys as players who were maybe a bit overlooked during most of their careers (always considered good players but not always thought of as great players) until they starting hitting career milestones in their last few seasons. 

[dcar00 14354]

16 minutes ago, Hank Chinaski said:

Yeah, all good points. And to be clear, I think they’re both certain HOFers. I guess I just meant that they both had long, 20+ year careers (which allowed them to hit HOF milestones) and neither was generally regarded as one of the game’s elite players for any significant amount of time (Thome had one top-5 MVP finish in his career), even though they both had a few elite seasons. And yeah, Beltre had a lot of defensive value and Thome had little, but Thome was also a much better offensive player (147 career OPS+), so those kind of offset. 

And, yeah, I think Biggio is sort of in that boat also. He had a relatively short, clear peak from ‘94-‘99 (he had two top-5 MVP finishes in that span) with some productive (but not elite) years on either side of it. If he doesn’t hang on for 20 years to compile 3,000 hits, he’s probably not in.

I guess I just kind of think of these guys as players who were maybe a bit overlooked during most of their careers (always considered good players but not always thought of as great players) until they starting hitting career milestones in their last few seasons. 

agreed.  Beltre was never considered great in regards to all players during his time but I think(and I could be wrong) he was likely the best overall 3rd baseman over that time period. as they say, timing is everything.

this is where WAR really helps.

Baines 22 years - career WAR 38.7  #367 for all position players, who the heck knows for outfielder/DH

Thome 22 years - career WAR 73.1  #6 for 1st Basemen but played a good amount of DH

Beltre 21 years career WAR 93.5 #4 for 3rd baseman but played very little DH

Biggio at 65 WAR is marginal but I think he also gets bonus points for his position versatility.  baseball writers love that shit(as they should IMO).

3000 hits is still going to be a standard barometer which wasn't destroyed by the juicers as much.  writers are still in love with the art of hitting safely but walks/OBP is playing a bigger role.  I think they kind of hate the 3 true outcomes stuff to be honest.

[Hank Chinaski 6320]

43 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

agreed.  Beltre was never considered great in regards to all players during his time but I think(and I could be wrong) he was likely the best overall 3rd baseman over that time period. as they say, timing is everything.

this is where WAR really helps.

Baines 22 years - career WAR 38.7  #367 for all position players, who the heck knows for outfielder/DH

Thome 22 years - career WAR 73.1  #6 for 1st Basemen but played a good amount of DH

Beltre 21 years career WAR 93.5 #4 for 3rd baseman but played very little DH

Biggio at 65 WAR is marginal but I think he also gets bonus points for his position versatility.  baseball writers love that shit(as they should IMO).

3000 hits is still going to be a standard barometer which wasn't destroyed by the juicers as much.  writers are still in love with the art of hitting safely but walks/OBP is playing a bigger role.  I think they kind of hate the 3 true outcomes stuff to be honest.

Yeah. I actually feel bad for Baines, because he was a good hitter but has no business being in the HOF, and he’s now associated with that instead of his career. 

[Guest Lobo]

I'm curious what writers y'all think from 20 years ago give a flying fuck about WAR?  

[dcar00 14354]

28 minutes ago, Lobo said:

I'm curious what writers y'all think from 20 years ago give a flying fuck about WAR?  

Kirkjian for one.  I think more, even the older ones, are on board using it as a piece to the puzzle.  Moneyball A's kind of gave credence to some of the advanced stats stuff.

[Guest Lobo]

my bad, I meant the ballots from 20 years ago they voted on using traditional metrics.  even 10 years ago.  Yes, going forward.  But we're using modern metrics to debate why guys ~20 yaers ago got in or didn't get in.  It's an unfair comparison.  

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

9 hours ago, Lobo said:

I'm curious what writers y'all think from 20 years ago give a flying fuck about WAR?  

And it begs the question: should the Hall be stat driven only? 

[OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys 2078]

46 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

And it begs the question: should the Hall be stat driven only? 

if it isn't you have to revisit the beltre-is-borderline point above.  he's a HOFer because of his stats.  he's a no doubt not doubt HOFer because of everything else.

[Guest Lobo]

2 hours ago, Cheeseweasel said:

And it begs the question: should the Hall be stat driven only? 

I still think so, though obviously the statistical analysis has changed so dramatically.  But Cooperstown has always stood differently than the other major sports Halls, IMHO.  It's still a process run by humans, so there's gonna be biased towards players that were "nice guys", of "good character, played in bigger markets with just more visibility.  And I guess there should be some slight nod to post-season success as well. 

But I think there's still too much of a focus on winning rings=getting into Cooperstown.  If you were an outstanding, era-dominating player for 15 years and your team just couldn't get over the WS hump, don't hold that against the guy.  On the other hand, if he's on the fence with you as a voter, but played outstanding in October on the rare chances he got...I'd give him the bonus for that.  

And then it comes down to character, as with most things in life.  They just didn't give a shit about 65 years of voting, and that's fine.  A couple guys got bumped up to the front of the line because they were so beloved or so community engaged or so great with the media.  But very few.  Like the post-season thing...never really held against you...but if you had it on your resume...it could certainly expedite your vote a notch or two.  Shit, they voted in Ty Cobb first ballot and nobody liked him, Ty hated the towns he lived in and every in them, and he used to assault black people for fun.   

But then came steroid era voting.  Every player has always looked for an edge and probably cheated a bit.  But the big problem with this class is two-fold---not everybody was doing it so unleveled the playing field.  And two---a lot of the guys who did it not only lied about it multiple times...they were complete assholes about it.  As with most things in life...you can cheat or you can be an asshole.  You really can't get away with being both.  So this class proves that it's not only a stat-driven Hall of Fame.  Because they'd all be in by now.  We've been talking about it here for awhile...I'm starting to come around to the idea of putting them all in and just letting fans and history sort their story in the actual building for themselves.  

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

That's a lot of words to say Joe Jackson got screwed.

[dcar00 14354]

3 minutes ago, Lobo said:

I still think so, though obviously the statistical analysis has changed so dramatically.  But Cooperstown has always stood differently than the other major sports Halls, IMHO.  It's still a process run by humans, so there's gonna be biased towards players that were "nice guys", of "good character, played in bigger markets with just more visibility.  And I guess there should be some slight nod to post-season success as well. 

But I think there's still too much of a focus on winning rings=getting into Cooperstown.  If you were an outstanding, era-dominating player for 15 years and your team just couldn't get over the WS hump, don't hold that against the guy.  On the other hand, if he's on the fence with you as a voter, but played outstanding in October on the rare chances he got...I'd give him the bonus for that.  

And then it comes down to character, as with most things in life.  They just didn't give a shit about 65 years of voting, and that's fine.  A couple guys got bumped up to the front of the line because they were so beloved or so community engaged or so great with the media.  But very few.  Like the post-season thing...never really held against you...but if you had it on your resume...it could certainly expedite your vote a notch or two.  Shit, they voted in Ty Cobb first ballot and nobody liked him, Ty hated the towns he lived in and every in them, and he used to assault black people for fun.   

But then came steroid era voting.  Every player has always looked for an edge and probably cheated a bit.  But the big problem with this class is two-fold---not everybody was doing it so unleveled the playing field.  And two---a lot of the guys who did it not only lied about it multiple times...they were complete assholes about it.  As with most things in life...you can cheat or you can be an asshole.  You really can't get away with being both.  So this class proves that it's not only a stat-driven Hall of Fame.  Because they'd all be in by now.  We've been talking about it here for awhile...I'm starting to come around to the idea of putting them all in and just letting fans and history sort their story in the actual building for themselves.  

thats why I suggested the steroids area in the HOF.  put them all in at once, no public ceremony.  by the numbers it is probably

Mcgwire, Sosa, Rodriguez, Ramirez, Bonds, Clemens, Palmiero, Ortiz, maybe Pettite?  I'm sure there are others.

then get the vet committee to start working on players who could possibly be in if stuff wasn't out of whack due to steroids. guys like will clark, sheffield, etc.

I don't see how you let Ortiz in and not Palmiero, by the numbers.

The other option is to let them all drop off and put them in with a special select committee 10 years from now.  These guys want their day in the sun.  we can say, we can't ignore you but you fucked up so bad you will get a letter saying you are in, pick your hat, and then we are done.  no glorious day in the sun, they forfeited that.

and then put in Pete Rose, Joe Jackson, the same way.

 

 

[Guest Lobo]

I'm just spewing shit to get my heart around that, yeah---these 'roiders should probably be let in and let baseball move on.  I hated them all at first, mainly because I loved Clemens so much as a kid...it took a bit of my childhood love of the game away to see him be such a fuckface about his lying about it.  I mean we went from a decade debating Pete Rose's place in the Hall to a decade of this shit.  It's not good for the game.  I'll take wonky WAR/ERA+ debates on players getting in any day over this shit sandwich.  

Start with the compromise---was this guy statistically trending towards Cooperstown anyway?  After those guys are voted up and down on methodically, move to the next group---how much did steroids push this guy into Cooperstown-orbit?  The final group---was this guy just a 15-year drug-fueled affront to the game that never would have sniffed enshrinement but for steroids and if so---are the numbers still so strong he deserves consideration?  Writers consistently put guys in who had careers cut short for myriad reasons because they "project out" that the player would have played to Coopertown-esque numbers had he continued.  Well, overlay that same mentality to Clemens career.  

There's 10x the evidence against Rose than there was against Jackson.  And of course baseball can't go back and ask people about Joe's involvement but they can for Rose and settle that business once and for all...but like the steroid thing...I think they secretly like the drama.  

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

2 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

and then put in Pete Rose, Joe Jackson, the same way.

Yeah, any Hall without Rose and SJJ is a joke.

[Beau Vine 54413]

3 hours ago, Cheeseweasel said:

And it begs the question: should the Hall be stat driven only? 

Stats are a record of what happened on the field, so I fail to see the point in objecting to them.

[Hank Chinaski 6320]

I think we have really good statistical methods to assess player value at this point, and I do think this should be a somewhat automated component of induction. WAR and other advanced metrics will continue to evolve - particularly in the defensive side - but they aren’t going away and I’d guess that today’s value assessments will strongly correlate with those 20 years from now because I think that the general methodology is pretty sound, at least on the offensive side of things (pitching too, though it feels like there is probably a bit more adjustment coming there).

Though I’m generally opposed to too much subjectivity, I do think that there are additional factors for consideration. Minoso is a good example. I’m glad he got in, but he may not have cleared a strictly statistical threshold. I think circumstances, such as his playing in the Negro Leagues and then being kept in the minors due to “color quotas” should be considered with his statistical case (since these directly affected his career totals), and his being the first Black Latin player in MLB should be considered from a “contributions to the game” perspective. 

[dcar00 14354]

5 hours ago, Lobo said:

I'm just spewing shit to get my heart around that, yeah---these 'roiders should probably be let in and let baseball move on.  I hated them all at first, mainly because I loved Clemens so much as a kid...it took a bit of my childhood love of the game away to see him be such a fuckface about his lying about it.  I mean we went from a decade debating Pete Rose's place in the Hall to a decade of this shit.  It's not good for the game.  I'll take wonky WAR/ERA+ debates on players getting in any day over this shit sandwich.  

Start with the compromise---was this guy statistically trending towards Cooperstown anyway?  After those guys are voted up and down on methodically, move to the next group---how much did steroids push this guy into Cooperstown-orbit?  The final group---was this guy just a 15-year drug-fueled affront to the game that never would have sniffed enshrinement but for steroids and if so---are the numbers still so strong he deserves consideration?  Writers consistently put guys in who had careers cut short for myriad reasons because they "project out" that the player would have played to Coopertown-esque numbers had he continued.  Well, overlay that same mentality to Clemens career.  

There's 10x the evidence against Rose than there was against Jackson.  And of course baseball can't go back and ask people about Joe's involvement but they can for Rose and settle that business once and for all...but like the steroid thing...I think they secretly like the drama.  

I don't necessarily disagree but how do you know when they started?

I do think the Hall needs to come with some type of rule moving forward.  maybe something like first test you are reduced to 5 years ballot time, second test you are off unless a vet committee wants to take you up later.

my guess is Clemens and Bonds certainly thought even if they got popped they'd get in.

[OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys 2078]

in accordance with our discussion of good guys get in, Clemens is suddenly (and hilariously transparently) very active on twitter.  hey guys!  just thinking about baseball! aw shucks, i can't wait to engage with all you fellow fans of the game!

[Guest Lobo]

Isn't BBWA voting still going on?  

[Beau Vine 54413]

JoePos:

Quote

So, here’s the Hall of Fame question of the day: Who is the better Hall of Fame candidate, David Ortiz or Gary Sheffield?

Notice the question: I didn’t ask who was the better player. We will get into that, but that’s not the big question. No, I’m asking: Who is the better Hall of Fame candidate?

And, even more, I’m asking: Is there a difference between those two questions?

Let’s start with some basics — David Ortiz will probably get elected this year. Gary Sheffield definitely will not. With 13\30 public ballots in, Ortiz is getting 83% of the vote. That doesn’t make him a lock to get in by any stretch — he still has to get 71% of the “private” votes, and in general the people who do not publicly reveal their ballots tend to be significantly harder on suspected steroid users.

We don’t need to delve very far into Ortiz’s specific story — his connection to steroid use is an illegally leaked drug test — to note that pretty much anyone even tangentially connected to steroid use has gotten 10-20% less support among the private votes. I think he gets there. But I think it will be painfully close, at least this year.

Sheffield, meanwhile, is getting 50% of the vote right now. It’s the best he’s done — he drew less than 15% in each of his first four years on the ballot — but it will not be close to good enough to get him elected. With only two years left on the ballot after this one, it’s going to take a real wind shift for Sheffield to get elected to the Hall of Fame.

OK, so we know that the voters have Ortiz way ahead.

And that leads to the first question: Was Ortiz the better player?

I’m not sure we can give a conclusive answer to that, but I do think we can get pretty close to one. Let’s begin with their hitting numbers — Sheffield did get about 900 more plate appearances than Ortiz, so please keep that in mind:

Ortiz: .286/.380/.552, 141 OPS+, 632 doubles, 19 triples, 541 homers, 1,768 RBIs, 1,419 runs.

Sheffield: .292/.393/.514, 140 OPS+, 467 doubles, 27 triples, 509 homers, 1,676 RBIs, 1,636 runs.

Boy, that looks close, isn’t it? Ortiz, having had so many games at Fenway Park (he played the Green Monster the way Yo-Yo Ma plays the cello) is way ahead in doubles. Sheffield, though, got on base more and, because of that, scored many more runs.

So, who was better? Well by Baseball-Reference Batting Runs (RBat), Sheffield was demonstrably better, 561 batting runs above average to 455 for Ortiz. That difference does surprise me, I must admit — their OPS+ numbers are SO CLOSE. I asked our pal Tom Tango to explain why there is such a big gap, and he explained it this way:

1. The fact they have such close OPS+ misses the true value of those extra walks that Sheffield got.

2. RE24 is probably the most complete way to evaluate offense because it looks at the 24 different states of baseball* and it shows Sheffield being 60 runs more valuable on offense than Ortiz.

3. Sheffield’s career is longer so there is more value there.

*The 24 states of baseball? It’s actually easier that you think: There are 24 possibilities every time a batter steps to the point. There could be: No runners on with 0, 1, 2 outs (3 states); runner on first with 0, 1, 2 outs; runner on second with 0, 1, 2 outs; runner on third with 0, 1, 2 outs; runners on first and second with 0, 1, 2 outs; runners on first and third with 0, 1, 2 outs; runners on second and third with 0, 1, 2 outs; and bases loaded with 0, 1, 2 outs — that’s 24 different states.

Tango also points out something else which I find fascinating — Sheffield’s Win Probability Added, which looks at every individual at-bat, is higher than Ortiz’s. I did not expect that at all, considering Ortiz’s clutch-hitting reputation.

Look, they were both absolutely incredible hitters, way above Hall of Fame level, but if we’re comparing them, the advanced numbers offer a pretty powerful argument that Sheffield was better.

In fact, let’s look at it them more way, by ranking at each player’s best offensive season.

For Sheffield, that would probably be 1996 for the Marlins, when he hit .314/.465/.624 with 33 doubles, 42 homers, 120 RBIs and 118 runs scored.

For Ortiz, that would probably be 2007, when he hit .332/.445/.621 with 52 doubles, 35 homers, 117 RBIs and 116 runs scored.

Those are two extraordinary seasons, no question about it. There doesn’t seem much to choose between them. Sheffield did get on base more and hit more homers, but Ortiz had many more doubles and hit for a higher average.

Ortiz was a truly fearsome hitter, especially with the game on the line. (Rich Gagnon/Getty Images)

But if you look closer, Sheffield’s season was better. He played in a somewhat lower-scoring environment. He played half his games in a tough hitting ballpark in Florida while Ortiz was tilting Fenway Park. And the most compelling stat is still on-base percentage — the game is very much about making the fewest outs — and Sheffield’s 20-point lead there carries the day.

By RBat, Sheffield was 76 runs above average in his best year and Ortiz was 58 runs above average. FanGraphs, calculating things a bit differently, also gives Sheffield a pretty commanding lead, 70 runs above average to 62.

I think Sheffield was the better hitter.

Now, you don’t have to buy any of this. You absolutely could argue, “Hey, come on with your RE24 and Rbat talk, it’s obvious, Ortiz hit more doubles and more homers, he drove in more runs, what are we even talking about here?” All’s fair in love and baseball arguments. But, honestly, taking all things into consideration, even if you don’t buy my premise that Sheffield was a better hitter, I don’t see a compelling argument that ORTIZ was the better hitter. I think it is, at best, a push.

OK, moving on, who was the better baserunner? Well, that’s obviously Sheffield — Ortiz was a very smart baserunner, but he was legendarily slow. Sheffield was the much faster athlete (he stole more than 250 bases in his career), and all in all he was clearly better on the bases.

What about defense? Well, that’s tricky stuff. Ortiz was a designated hitter almost 90% of the time — after age 28 he never played more than 10 games in the field. So his defensive value is easy enough to figure: It’s basically zero. Yes, it is true that when pressed into action, as he was in the playoffs at times, he proved surprisingly spry out there. But, no, we can’t give him any points for defense.

And Sheffield? Well, by Baseball-Reference numbers, Gary Sheffield was the worst defensive outfielder in baseball history. Here are the five worst defenders by Baseball-Reference’s Fielding Runs Above Average (Rfield):

1. Derek Jeter, minus-253 runs

2. Gary Sheffield, minus-195 runs

3. Adam Dunn, minus-168 runs

4. Michael Young, minus-152 runs

5. Matt Kemp, minus-141 runs

Now, it’s not apples to apples because Jeter and Young played elite defensive positions. So if you would like to take positional adjustments into account, you can look at Defensive WAR, but that does Sheffield no favors at all:

Lowest dWAR:

1. Adam Dunn, minus-28.4 wins

2. Gary Sheffield, minus-27.7 wins

3. Frank Howard, minus-22.7 wins

4. Dave Winfield, minus-22.4 wins

5. Frank Thomas, minus-22.5 wins

Yes, I can see your face: You might want to throw out the whole thing when you see Dave Winfield, a seven-time Gold Glove winner with a glorious arm, on such a list. Bill James, among others, is deeply skeptical that Sheffield was THAT terrible a fielder. I can see Bill’s counter-argument: Sheffield was a fantastic athlete, he played five different positions in his career (he began as a shortstop), he made enough good plays that he didn’t stand out as an eyesore out there, and his teams usually won.

But you can’t miss the obvious math here — Sheffield’s range numbers are putrid, no matter what position he played. He just didn’t make as many plays as other defensive players.

So, in considering the two players, what do you do? Ortiz didn’t play the field. Sheffield played the field but was a liability. Which one gets dinged more?

By Baseball Reference’s calculations, Sheffield gets hurt quite a lot more — they subtract 272 runs from his total (-195 for fielding, -77 more for playing less valuable defensive positions).

Ortiz, meanwhile, only gets dinged 220 runs (-204 for being a DH, but only -16 for his actual fielding). That’s a 50-run difference below average, or seven or so wins in WAR. I must say I don’t agree with that. I do not believe that Sheffield, who started 2,203 games in the field, was worth less defensively than David Ortiz, who started just 278 games in the field. I just don’t see that at all.

But, OK, this is where we are. You add it all up for WAR purposes and here’s what you get:

Baseball-Reference WAR: Gary Sheffield, 60.5; David Ortiz, 55.3

FanGraphs WAR: Gary Sheffield, 62.1; David Ortiz, 51.0.

So both say that Sheffield was better. And, as I have mentioned, I tend to agree. They were both incredible hitters. But I think when you take everything into consideration, Sheffield was the better player.

And now we ask the real question: Who is the better Hall of Fame candidate?

I think a lot about Sandy Koufax. A lot. He turned 86 last week — Happy Birthday, Sandy — and it occurred to me then, not for the first time, that he is actually the perfect Hall of Fame candidate. What do I mean by that? I mean that pound for pound, he had more Hall of Fame moments than anyone in baseball history, between the perfect game, the no-hitters, the Yom Kippur stand, the World Series dominance, the Game 7 performances, etc., etc., etc.

To squeeze all of that into a 12-year career — and really he did just about all of it in six years — is beyond remarkable, and it is why Koufax’s name still stands out among the legends. Sometimes, for effect, it’s fun to compare the career stats of other superb pitchers like Johan Santana or Ron Guidry to Koufax, but it feels a little bit like comparing another artist to Vincent Van Gogh by counting the paintings. Koufax’s brilliance is not in the numbers. It is in the memories he burned into baseball history.

Sheffield’s offensive numbers are compelling. but his defense is another story. (Sporting News via Getty Images via Getty Images)

Gary Sheffield had an impactful career, no question about it. I can still see him now with that bat waving dangerously behind him. Was he the scariest hitter in baseball to face? Certainly, he was right there. He seemed to throw all his fury and soul into each and every swing, and yet he rarely struck out. He would have stretches where he was simply impossible to get out. He was outspoken, he was controversial, he was brilliant, he was arrested, and he was caught up in the steroid mess.

But … by the Sandy Koufax measure, his Hall of Fame case might be less than awe-inspiring. How important is he to the story of baseball? I’m not sure. I tend to remember the aura of Sheffield more than individual moments. I remember he was on that crazy 1997 Marlins team, but I don’t recall anything in particular he did. And then that team was cast out to the four corners of America. I remember him on some great but inevitably disappointing Yankees teams in the mid-2000s, and again I don’t recall anything in particular he did. His time with the Braves is completely gone from my memory. He did hit 500 home runs, but I don’t really remember the big one — No. 500 happened when he played for the Mets (he played for the Mets?) and came in as a pinch-hitter, and he hit it off someone named Mitch Stetter.

How much should it matter that Sheffield’s greatness is, at least for me, vague and easily forgettable?

Maybe it shouldn’t matter at all.

But now: Ortiz. I remember everything. Don’t you? It’s so strange, if you look at his career numbers, he wasn’t any better in high-leverage situation (.292/.388/.556) than he was in medium-leverage situations (.299/.388/.572). He wasn’t dramatically better with runners in scoring position (.296/.411/.531) than he was overall (.283/.380/.552).

And yet … he was the most dangerous hitter I ever remember seeing when the game mattered. Well, him or George Brett. Maybe it doesn’t add up over a career, but how many incredible Ortiz moments spring to mind? Dozens, right? There’s his walk-off home run in Game 4 of the 2004 ALCS, his walk-off single in Game 5 of that series, his curse-shattering home run in Game 7, his first-inning home run in Game 1 of that World Series, the one that told all of Boston that this time everything would be all right, his “This is our F—— city” speech after the Boston Marathon bombing, the grand slam he hit against the Tigers in the 2013 ALCS, the 11-for-16 performance in that year’s World Series, and we could just keep going and going.

All of which takes us back around to the question, and for the sake of argument, let’s say these two premises are true (you might disagree with one or both, but this is only to bring home the point):

A. Gary Sheffield was a slightly but measurably better player than David Ortiz.

B. David Ortiz was much more famous and accomplished many more memorable and significant things in the game.

You get only one vote — which one do you put in the Hall of Fame?

Only one vote, I choose David Ortiz. I just think that, in the end, the Hall of Fame is about celebrating moments, achievements, memories. I’ve started to think about the Hall of Fame this way: Imagine a huge book* that tells the story of baseball. Do you have it in your mind?

*Did someone say huge book?

OK, now turn to the back of the book and look at the index.

And ask yourself — how many times is the player listed in that index?

Gary Sheffield? I’m sure he’d get a couple of mentions.

But David Ortiz would have a whole column of mentions.

I’m not saying that this is where the Hall of Fame argument begins and ends. Roger Maris undoubtedly has a bunch of mentions in such a book and he’s not in the Hall of Fame. Joe Carter would be in that index, while Craig Biggio might not. Dwight Gooden would be in that index, while Bert Blyleven might not. Fernando Valenzuela would be in that index while Mike Mussina might not. The Hall of Fame, despite the name and the occasional arguments people make, is certainly not just about fame.

But fame, surely, is a part of it. Altering the course of baseball history is certainly a part of it. As it turns out, I didn’t have to choose just one — so I voted for both Sheffield and Ortiz. But as I see the stark voting difference between the two, I can’t help but think two conflicting thoughts. One, I really do believe that Sheffield was better. And two, I really do believe that Ortiz is the better Hall of Fame candidate.

 

[Hank Chinaski 6320]

I’d pick Sheffield. The excerpt below doesn’t strike me as strange or surprising at all - so much of the narrative around certain players are rooted more in perception than fact. I’m unmoved by “moments” when it comes to assessing the value of an entire career, I guess…

It’s so strange, if you look at his career numbers, he wasn’t any better in high-leverage situation (.292/.388/.556) than he was in medium-leverage situations (.299/.388/.572). He wasn’t dramatically better with runners in scoring position (.296/.411/.531) than he was overall (.283/.380/.552).

[Beau Vine 54413]

2 minutes ago, Hank Chinaski said:

so much of the narrative around certain players are rooted more in perception than fact.

Ortiz has WS numbers that would make Jeter fanbois cream their jorts.

[OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys 2078]

23 hours ago, Hank Chinaski said:

I’d pick Sheffield. The excerpt below doesn’t strike me as strange or surprising at all - so much of the narrative around certain players are rooted more in perception than fact. I’m unmoved by “moments” when it comes to assessing the value of an entire career, I guess…

It’s so strange, if you look at his career numbers, he wasn’t any better in high-leverage situation (.292/.388/.556) than he was in medium-leverage situations (.299/.388/.572). He wasn’t dramatically better with runners in scoring position (.296/.411/.531) than he was overall (.283/.380/.552).

That’s defining high leverage in one way.  But bases loaded on Tuesday in May is different than game 6 of World Series.  He’s .455/.576/.795 in 14 WS games, presumably going against the best of the best each time. My guess is no one since we’ve been alive is comparable over that many games. 

[Guest Lobo]

Very compelling argument for Sheffield.  Not gonna excuse Ortiz's off-the-field "training regimen"...but I'm a huge fan so this is all with a grain of salt.  Again, a guy should not be voted in just because of post-season acclaim.  But it should certainly be considered as a "bonus factor."  

But to tie this back to the longevity argument...yes, obviously he was helped by only playing DH with a few 1b appearances for inter-league play.  But to "hang on" until age 40 and still go out leading the league in doubles and RBI and SLG and OPS and #6 in MVP voting in your final fucking year...that's something.  All due respect to Jim Thome who risked life and limb fumbling around at 1b like a brave patriot...if he gets in, Ortiz gets in.  If Papi has to wait a few years for the "steroid class" to go first, I get it. 

All that to say, the writer makes a compelling case for Sheffield I hadn't thought about.  Also, anybody else taken aback by the "statistical claim" that Sheffield was the worst defensive outfielder in history?  I did not see that coming.  

[Had Enough 2088]

Very compelling argument for Sheffield.  Not gonna excuse Ortiz's off-the-field "training regimen"...but I'm a huge fan so this is all with a grain of salt.  Again, a guy should not be voted in just because of post-season acclaim.  But it should certainly be considered as a "bonus factor."  
But to tie this back to the longevity argument...yes, obviously he was helped by only playing DH with a few 1b appearances for inter-league play.  But to "hang on" until age 40 and still go out leading the league in doubles and RBI and SLG and OPS and #6 in MVP voting in your final fucking year...that's something.  All due respect to Jim Thome who risked life and limb fumbling around at 1b like a brave patriot...if he gets in, Ortiz gets in.  If Papi has to wait a few years for the "steroid class" to go first, I get it. 
All that to say, the writer makes a compelling case for Sheffield I hadn't thought about.  Also, anybody else taken aback by the "statistical claim" that Sheffield was the worst defensive outfielder in history?  I did not see that coming.  

Can you make it to 40 being a fat ass without the juice and having to play the field?

But I’m not now nor have I ever been a fan of Ortiz. He played the PR game right though.

He had 17 steals or something. He didn’t even burn energy running the damn bases or thinking of defense neither during the game or in pregame preparation. My personal opinion is that his career was damn near 100% made off the juice.

[dcar00 14354]

On 1/7/2022 at 4:11 PM, Hank Chinaski said:

I’d pick Sheffield. The excerpt below doesn’t strike me as strange or surprising at all - so much of the narrative around certain players are rooted more in perception than fact. I’m unmoved by “moments” when it comes to assessing the value of an entire career, I guess…

It’s so strange, if you look at his career numbers, he wasn’t any better in high-leverage situation (.292/.388/.556) than he was in medium-leverage situations (.299/.388/.572). He wasn’t dramatically better with runners in scoring position (.296/.411/.531) than he was overall (.283/.380/.552).

and so would anyone with a brain.  Ortiz was as DH, juiced and played in fenway.  but you know Boston Scrong...

unfortunately, BBWA are mostly functional idiots.

[Wulaw Horn 19148]

On 1/8/2022 at 9:10 PM, Had Enough said:

Can you make it to 40 being a fat ass without the juice and having to play the field?

But I’m not now nor have I ever been a fan of Ortiz. He played the PR game right though.

He had 17 steals or something. He didn’t even burn energy running the damn bases or thinking of defense neither during the game or in pregame preparation. My personal opinion is that his career was damn near 100% made off the juice.

Yeah. You see that in his career without a doubt when he was a JAG and cast off in MN before going to Boston and discovering the benefits of vitamin S. 
he wasn’t like Clemens it Bonds and a generational type that became an all time legend with the roids. He was a dude and became great at one element of the game with the roids. 
I’d clearly have him in the HOF but not before Bonds and Clemens. 

[TonyTexas 10525]

Good lord, this potato-eater such a douchebag

 

[dcar00 14354]

2 hours ago, TonyTexas said:

Good lord, this potato-eater such a douchebag

 

so I guess Kent is a 15 year guy.

"If Jeff Kent ain't in, then ain't nobody gettin' in dammit!"

This dude probably thinks the HOF should be Yastrzemski and Fisk.  No assholes, drunks, druggies, roiders, sportos, motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, wasteoids, dweebies, and dickheads

[Beau Vine 54413]

Curly-haired boyfriend does it again.

[TonyTexas 10525]

2 hours ago, dcar00 said:

so I guess Kent is a 15 year guy.

"If Jeff Kent ain't in, then ain't nobody gettin' in dammit!"

This dude probably thinks the HOF should be Yastrzemski and Fisk.  No assholes, drunks, druggies, roiders, sportos, motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, wasteoids, dweebies, and dickheads

Or rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and Methodists.

[Hank Chinaski 6320]

19 hours ago, TonyTexas said:

Good lord, this potato-eater such a douchebag

 

This is why I wish the voters were required to submit (and publish) a written explanation justifying their votes. Everyone knows that DS does (and always has done) shit like this strictly for attention. It would at least be entertaining to read his inane drivel about how Jeff Kent is the one player on this ballot who deserves HOF induction. 

[Beau Vine 54413]

On 1/12/2022 at 9:26 AM, Hank Chinaski said:

This is why I wish the voters were required to submit (and publish) a written explanation justifying their votes. Everyone knows that DS does (and always has done) shit like this strictly for attention. It would at least be entertaining to read his inane drivel about how Jeff Kent is the one player on this ballot who deserves HOF induction. 

Why do you think this would accomplish anything?  90% of the voters already write a column explaining their ballots, including Curly-Haired Boyfriend.  He's basically the Ted Cruz of sportswriting -- a shameless, miserable, unlikeable subhuman who feels that his only job is to generate outrage.  

So here's what you'd read:

Quote

There’s only one worthy candidate without a whiff of scandal
By Dan Shaughnessy
Dan Shaughnessy's ballot

I loved it when Ken Griffey Jr. was on the ballot. Same when it came time to vote for Mariano Rivera and Derek Jeter.

It’s been 35 years since I first had the honor of voting for ballplayers eligible for Cooperstown, and it is never something taken lightly. That’s why this year’s ballot presents such a challenge.

The Hall through the years has asked baseball writers to consider candidates’ “character.” It’s absurd, of course. Is there any group less qualified to pass judgment on a candidate’s “character” than a pack of baseball scribes?

The easy thing would be to ignore the charge and just go with the best players. On this year’s ballot, that obviously would include Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, Sammy Sosa, Gary Sheffield, and David Ortiz.

All of them are 500-plus home run guys. Bonds was the best hitter of his generation, Clemens the best pitcher. Based on stats alone, Bonds is one of the top five players who ever lived and Clemens among the top five pitchers. It’s pretty absurd to have a Hall of Fame that includes Harold Baines but not Bonds, Trevor Hoffman but not Clemens.

Ramirez is probably the best righthanded hitter I’ve ever seen. A-Rod is the greatest shortstop in the history of the position. Sosa hit more than 60 homers in a season three times. Ortiz is the Father Christmas of baseball, won three championships in Boston, and may be the most clutch postseason hitter in history.

And yet here I am voting only for second baseman Jeff Kent. Kent gets this vote because he was dominant at his position in the time he played and there is no whiff of cheating or off-field scandal. Look him up: Among all second basemen, Kent ranks first in homers and third in RBIs — better than Ryne Sandberg or Joe Morgan. He also was National League MVP in 2000. He has a higher WAR than Bobby Doerr.

Fair or unfair, I’ve never voted for anyone who got caught using PEDs or appeared to gain an unfair advantage by juicing.

Granted, there is no way of knowing who was 100 percent clean and who wasn’t — and that includes Griffey, Rivera, and Jeter. We all make our own conclusions. And in many cases, writers vote for them even if they feel they cheated. It’s the “everybody was doing it” mentality.

In my opinion, Ortiz will gain entry when voting is revealed Jan. 25. Good for him. But there’s no vote here, because I’m trying to be consistent. Big Papi failed MLB’s baseline testing in 2003. The commissioner asked us to ignore that failed test — a presidential pardon not granted Sosa, A-Rod, or Manny, who also failed the same test. I didn’t vote for the others. Not voting for David.

Finally, there’s Curt Schilling. Based on stats alone, one can make a case for or against his candidacy. When he failed to gain entry last winter, he stated that he no longer wanted to be part of this process. I am honoring his request.

 

[Guest Lobo]

He laments there's no more Jeters on the ballot but then calls A-Rod the greatest shortstop of all-time...even though A-Rod wasn't the best SS on his own team?  I don't get it.  

That last little remark about Schilling is also curious.  

I'll give Dan this much...it's poorly written...but at least he puts out his rationale for all to see.  Most writers don't do that or they wait years to reveal it as if we're gonna give a shit ten years down the line when everybody is no longer eligible.  

This shit's annoying but I almost expected, and perhaps even tacitly welcomed, more grandstanding here in the last couple of years for much of this PED-class.  

[Beau Vine 54413]

3 hours ago, Lobo said:

I'll give Dan this much...it's poorly written...but at least he puts out his rationale for all to see.  Most writers don't do that

Most writers do do this.  They put out a column explaining their choices.  That's literally where 90% of the ballots Mr Thibs post come from.