Hall of Fame Discussion 2022 and Beyond

[andyb]

I don't think we created a topic on this yet though there was some discussion randomly around the Veterans Committee and Dick Allen.

Here is a tracker on the Hall of Fame voting:
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=F2E5D8FC5199DFAF!39939&ithint=file,xlsx&authkey=!AK9u16pmWGGlQsI

To me it looks like nobody gets in this year. Bonds and Clemens and Ortiz are all above the 75% line in the public voting, but I think we all know that the non-public votes are more likely to be the ones to skip any steroid users. ARod is doing less well as a newcomer. Rolen looks like he will build on his totals but not get in. And Curt Schilling seems to be getting his wish for the writers to skip him.

In former Phillies 1st-timer news Jimmy Rollins is barely above the 5% line. I don't think he is a Hall of Famer but he should stay on the ballot. Jonathan Papelbon and Ryan Howard each have 1 ballot so far so are likely to fall off (you have to click a + to get to the Howard column towards the upper right of the sheet).

[BostonRoss]

Schilling is at 71%, the same as he got last year. In last year's tracker, looks like he was at 74%. So I think it will be close, especially since candidates often get more support in their last year on the ballot. But I suspect he will be the guy who talked himself out of the Hall of Fame.

Rolen still has a few years after this one to get in. I think he will eventually.

Ortiz has the highest percentage so far, but he probably won't make it this year. I suspect he gets in eventually, too, unless more solid evidence of PED use is revealed.

Wow, Vizquel's stock has plummeted. I guess a loft of voters take the character clause seriously.

[bkox]

Hall of Fame was more fun when we didnt have to debate steroids and other stuff and just debated stats.

[andyb]

I think all these percentages are too high. The writers that only vote for a couple of players are going to be the anonymous late votes.

[julio]

Hall of Fame was more fun when we didnt have to debate steroids and other stuff and just debated stats.

We've always had to debate other things. Enos Slaughter's overt racism. Pete Rose's gambling, and general corruption. Ty Cobb's unsportsmanlike conduct. Etc.

[BostonRoss]

There is definitely bias involved in that the actual voting percentages are on average lower than the percentages from the publicly revealed votes. But the bias is not uniform across all candidates. Some candidates seem to do better in the actual voting. Looks like that was the case for Vizquel last year.

[VoteForKalas]

Hall of Fame was more fun when we didnt have to debate steroids and other stuff and just debated stats.

Obviously, a player's stats can be impacted by steroid usage so it is very reasonable to debate their "true" performance for the HOF. However, due to MLB's denial of reality for financial profits for years, the issue of the players being punished as steroid offenders when it was not a MLB rule and certainly never enforced in any way is a valid argument IMO.

I agree with you that other character issues not connected to their performance are harder to parse.

[andyb]

Looks like that was the case for Vizquel last year.

Not sure if I recall his before and after percentages, but he is probably the type of anti-sabermetrics candidate that gets very loud opposition on the internet. Maybe it is the old school writers who vote for him anonymously that don't want to get shouted down on the internet. Vizquel is really no better a candidate than Rollins (and arguably slightly worse). He was a good defensive shortstop but his counting stats are more about his longevity. He and Rollins have similar WAR but it took Vizquel more years to get there. It is nice that he remained above average defensively throughout his 30s, but his peak and average years were not as good as Jimmy's.

[BostonRoss]

The tracking spreadsheet shows the 2021 actual and pre-results.

[andyb]

It is both the public vs private and early vs late bias that produces the various discrepancies. The current tracking sheet has less that a quarter of the vote. Imagine the Bonds and Clemens percentages will dip a little even on the tracking sheet as we get closer to the vote. There is some bias in the enthusiasm of voters that want to vote early (just like in real elections!).

[Philsmania]

Bonds and Clemens were already HOF fame locks before they started juicing late and gave their careers huge second winds (more so Clemens, in terms of the second wind)

[xogfog]

I think Bonds, Clemens, McGuire and Sosa should all be in the HOF. I think you can't single out the big time players from the rest of the league that was using steroids but flew under the radar. The whole era is tainted. Fact is, none of those players were ever suspended for steroid use.

No players from the 50's 60's, 70's and 80's, 90's or early 2000 were ever suspended for using amphetamines (greenies, drug name Dexedrine). They sped up your heart rate and heightened your senses, alertness, aggression, and reaction time. They were basically speed, but approximately 85% of the players took them until they were finally banned in 2006. There are hundreds of players in the HOF that used them. Hell, guys like Ted Williams and other players that served in WWII brought them back from the war and used them. Where was the Senate Committee to look into that?

The whole steroid era is tainted, the only players I would exclude from the steroid era are players that failed a test after the rules changed. Otherwise, everyone from that era needs to be painted with the same brush. If Bagwell and Piazza are in, then put those other guys in.

[bkox]

Ive talked about this argument before in regards to Pete Rose..so Ill bring it up again.

Isnt this really all about timing? If the steroid scandal didnt blow up until after these guys had been elected, would they have been removed from the HOF? Same with Pete. If the Dowd report had come out after he had been inducted, would he have been removed?

The answer is no.

And would the HOF ever remove someone? Is it even possible? If tomorrow a current HOFer murdered someone, or was found to hurting children, would he be removed from the HOF?

I also think it taints the sport when the all time HR king and hit king arent in its HOF.

[andyb]

I think Bonds, Clemens, McGuire and Sosa should all be in the HOF.

I think you can discount the part of their career that was affected by steroids. To me that means Bonds and Clemens are definite Hall of Famers (with a note on their plaque about steroids). McGuire is borderline. Sosa probably not in because pre-steroids he really was not good enough and on a path where even longevity would have gotten him in.

[BostonRoss]

People who believe the PED guys shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame generally believe that they disqualified themselves from the honor regardless of the timing. If voters ignored what Schilling has done since his retirement, he would be in.

I personally prefer that the PED guys don't get in, but I have no problem with people who feel the opposite. The Hall of Fame basically includes inductees whom an overwhelming majority of baseball people and fans, with differing opinions, think should be in there (other than some questionable selections by various small "veterans' committees"). The percentage of people who think the PED guys belong has increased, but not enough for the most obvious cheaters to break through. I suspect that some of the best will start getting in at some point, and then the floodgates will open.

[BostonRoss]

I think Bonds, Clemens, McGuire and Sosa should all be in the HOF. I think you can't single out the big time players from the rest of the league that was using steroids but flew under the radar. The whole era is tainted. Fact is, none of those players were ever suspended for steroid use.

I'm curious how you feel about A-Rod, who was suspended. He was way better than Sosa or McGwire. His problem may have been that he was a few years younger than those other guys, and so he started using at a younger age and played longer in the period where there is testing.

[BostonRoss]

I agree it is about timing. But I feel that if someone got in who shouldn't have for whatever reason (even not really being good enough), that doesn't mean we have to induct everyone else who is in a similar situation.

There are probably Hall of Famers who said things just as bad as what Schilling has said (they may have been lucky there was no social media). Chipper Jones tweeted something about the Sandy Hook shootings being a hoax. But i can see how it's hard for many voters to overlook what Schilling is doing.

As far as Rose is concerned, I would have a hard time voting for someone who apparently is a statutory rapist, and that wouldn't change even if I learned that another existing Hall of Famer was as well..

[bkox]

As far as Rose is concerned, I would have a hard time voting for someone who apparently is a statutory rapist, and that wouldn't change even if I learned that another existing Hall of Famer was as well..

I agree. But we found out he (allegedly) was almost 30 years after he would have been inducted.

And I believe Bill Conlin is still in the HOF too and those allegations were much more recent. Like just months after he was inducted.

[xogfog]

The whole steroid era is fraught with problems. Steroids were banned in 1991, but they didn't start testing until 2003. I mean, it was obvious that some players were using in the early 90's, just look Dykstra 1992 vs. Dykstra 1993.so I blame MLB for not enforcing their own rules, but they knew that the Sosa/McGuire race revived the game and they looked away in exchange for the all mighty dollar. I can't taint bad behavior because it was allowed, so I can only look at actions once rules are in place and being enforced.

ARod was great and has a HOF resume, I never liked him, but he was a HOF player. I loved Manny Ramirez too and think he would have been a HOF player, Palmeiro too, but they also did fail a test and were suspended. My whole stance is, there are lots of performance enhancing substances that were widely used all through the modern age of baseball, but only get suspended once that substance is on the banned list and enforced. Well, none of those guys failed a test for a banned substance. They are just being held out to be proven users of a substance that nobody cared about until the home run records were broken. I apply that standard to Ortiz too. He excelled after 2003 and never tested positive or was suspended.

[BostonRoss]

Yeah. And OJ Simpson is still in the football HOF, right? I guess there is no process for removing someone, and it would be hard to come up with a reasonable one. You could have people voting to remove, say, Tom Yawkey for alleged racism while others might vote to remove him because they think he was undeserving in the first place.

I guess if I were a voter, I would just judge each case with the information I had at hand. Right now, I wouldn't vote for Schilling. I had supported huis candidacy through last year, but his January 6 comments were the last straw for me.