Hall of Fame Induction Talk
I don't doubt that Schilling's statements contributed to the drop in his votes, but as a daily witness to much of his career, I never considered him a Hall of Fame-caliber pitcher anyway. My threshold tends to skew high, however.
To wit: Jeff Bagwell. He had a good run, but nothing about his numbers, longevity, or stature in his prime made me think at the time that Cooperstown would be calling.
mfpark said:
JD Drew, Pat Burrell, and Matt Stairs
O, the tangled Phillies web we weave.
I hadn't considered Posada a HOFer, but I read an article last week, I think in the NYT that made a good case. After reading it, I certainly think he deserved to stay on the ballot. He wasn't much of a catcher, but his hitting stats as a catcher stack up against other guys in the Hall.
I think it's insane and hypocritical for Bud Selig to be in the Hall, and for Bonds and Clemens not to be. We have to remember that during the "PED era" Selig and the owners never pushed the union to even make PEDs against MLB rules in the CBA, let alone do any testing. So technically steroids and HGH were never against MLB rules when Bonds and Clemens were allegedly using. I know it was illegal to obtain PEDs without prescription and a lot of baseball writers use that as their excuse for for withholding a vote, citing the character criterion for selection. But I think that's just the self-righteousness of BBWA members of a certain age.
I've written it before, but I still believe the Baseball HOF voters as a group are idiots. Self-righteous guardians of some more "pure" MLB past that exists mainly in their imaginations. Anyone who isn't voting for Bonds or Clemens or didn't vote for Ken Griffey Jr. on the first ballot probably shouldn't be allowed to vote at all because IMHO they are putting their own self-importance ahead of doing the job of a responsible voter.
How do Piazza, Pudge and Bagwell get in but Bonds and Clemens do not. Also, Billy Wagner has like th ebest strikeout rate in MLB history and he gets 10%? Who are these people voting for the HOF?
DaveSchmidt said:
To wit: Jeff Bagwell. He had a good run, but nothing about his numbers, longevity, or stature in his prime made me think at the time that Cooperstown would be calling.
I concur.
I don't see the correlation/hypocrisy to Bud Selig being in the Hall and Bonds & Clemens not being inducted...It's apples and oranges to me...You have players on one side and a commissioner on the other...Like it or not, deserving or not, I'm going to venture a guess that every baseball commissioner who held the position for more than 5 years is in the Hall....And, on that basis I don't see how you keep Selig out.
Which brings us to Bonds and Clemens who were the best players of their time...And, on that basis they deserve to be in.
It just happens that all 3 of them built their legacy during the 'Steroid Era', which who knows if it is even over?
The unfortunate thing is we will never know how good Bonds or Clemens (and for that matter the rest of the PED users) really were....If it weren't for steroids we'd be comparing them to the greatest to have ever played the game...
Then again, that has always been the (fun?) conundrum, how do you compare players from different eras? It really is just impossible....
You look at Ruth's hitting numbers, especially relative to his peers, throw in that he he was an amazing pitcher before he became an outfielder and you quickly get to he was the Best Ever....But, then you say to yourself, hold on a sec, he played before the color barrier was broken and I don't recall much being said about whether he was a good fielder....And, then I find myself saying, Mays was the Best Ever, a true 5-tool player, and on and on it goes.
Anyhow, if you ask me, even knowing it was chemically enhanced, what Bonds did to the league from '01-'04 was a sight to behold. You simply could not pitch to him. In that sense, I imagine it was similar to how Ruth dominated early in his career.
As good as Clemens was I don't think he ever reached Bonds' level of dominance. For that matter, I would be surprised to ever see it again.
ml1 said:
I hadn't considered Posada a HOFer, but I read an article last week, I think in the NYT that made a good case. After reading it, I certainly think he deserved to stay on the ballot. He wasn't much of a catcher, but his hitting stats as a catcher stack up against other guys in the Hall.
I think it's insane and hypocritical for Bud Selig to be in the Hall, and for Bonds and Clemens not to be. We have to remember that during the "PED era" Selig and the owners never pushed the union to even make PEDs against MLB rules in the CBA, let alone do any testing. So technically steroids and HGH were never against MLB rules when Bonds and Clemens were allegedly using. I know it was illegal to obtain PEDs without prescription and a lot of baseball writers use that as their excuse for for withholding a vote, citing the character criterion for selection. But I think that's just the self-righteousness of BBWA members of a certain age.
I've written it before, but I still believe the Baseball HOF voters as a group are idiots. Self-righteous guardians of some more "pure" MLB past that exists mainly in their imaginations. Anyone who isn't voting for Bonds or Clemens or didn't vote for Ken Griffey Jr. on the first ballot probably shouldn't be allowed to vote at all because IMHO they are putting their own self-importance ahead of doing the job of a responsible voter.
Great comments all! I love the baseball folks on MOL--so thoughtful and knowledgeable. Even the Yankees fans.
Gee, when I picked out the three drop-offs to compare to Posada, I did not even realize they were all Phillies at one time. Honest. Guess I should have instead include Wagner?
My standards for inclusion in the HOF have dropped a lot over the years (not that what I think matters). I would not have supported Vlad or Bags or Biggio or Bunning or Edgar Martinez or even Andre Dawson. But given that the voters have enshrined folks who are all in this level of player--good solid careers but not absolutely dominant--it would be unfair to current and future candidates to suddenly up the criteria. And it is not like they were all that pristine in the past, either. I mean, Rabbit Maranville? Even compared to his era he was a middling player in many ways (would he have gotten in under his real name of Walter?). Ralph Kiner? Luis Aparacio? Lloyd Waner?
Even with my reduced standards I could have seen Lee Smith getting in. As I said above, his numbers are on the border for inclusion, but he was absolutely dominant--fearsome even--for a long time.
I'm not arguing that Selig should be out, I'm arguing that Bonds and Clemens should be in. IMHO, there is at least as much circumstantial evidence that Selig turned a willful blind eye to PEDs in MLB as there is that Bonds and Clemens used.
agbarganza said:
I don't see the correlation/hypocrisy to Bud Selig being in the Hall and Bonds & Clemens not being inducted...It's apples and oranges to me...You have players on one side and a commissioner on the other...Like it or not, deserving or not, I'm going to venture a guess that every baseball commissioner who held the position for more than 5 years is in the Hall....And, on that basis I don't see how you keep Selig out.
I'm generally in favor of inclusiveness. And one of my standards is how guys stacked up against others at their position during their careers. Craig Biggio was a 7-time All-Star at 3 different positions. Jeff Bagwell received at least some votes for MVP in 10 different seasons. Ryne Sandberg was a 10-time All-Star. If you're the best or one of the best at your position for a decade, to me you're a HOFer.
mfpark said:
Great comments all! I love the baseball folks on MOL--so thoughtful and knowledgeable. Even the Yankees fans.
Gee, when I picked out the three drop-offs to compare to Posada, I did not even realize they were all Phillies at one time. Honest. Guess I should have instead include Wagner?
My standards for inclusion in the HOF have dropped a lot over the years (not that what I think matters). I would not have supported Vlad or Bags or Biggio or Bunning or Edgar Martinez or even Andre Dawson. But given that the voters have enshrined folks who are all in this level of player--good solid careers but not absolutely dominant--it would be unfair to current and future candidates to suddenly up the criteria. And it is not like they were all that pristine in the past, either. I mean, Rabbit Maranville? Even compared to his era he was a middling player in many ways (would he have gotten in under his real name of Walter?). Ralph Kiner? Luis Aparacio? Lloyd Waner?
Even with my reduced standards I could have seen Lee Smith getting in. As I said above, his numbers are on the border for inclusion, but he was absolutely dominant--fearsome even--for a long time.
mfpark said:
Gee, when I picked out the three drop-offs to compare to Posada, I did not even realize they were all Phillies at one time.
Almost. J.D. Drew was drafted No. 1 over all by the Phillies but refused to sign. Which meant the Phils were given the first pick again the next year: Pat Burrell. Ten years later in 2008, when Burrell was mired in a slump, a trade with the Jays for Matt Stairs was arranged.
Practically enough thread for Jayson Stark to spin an entire column.
Glad to see Bags, Pudge, and Raines all got in. Each of them was spectacular in different ways, and they all seem to be decent folks as well. That should not be a criterion for selection, but it makes me feel good to see.
Looks like Hoffman and Vlad will get in next year. In my eyes, both are deserving.
I was very disappointed that Jorge did not receive enough support to even stay on the ballot for 2017. I am not certain that he is HOF caliber overall, but the guy did anchor one of the greatest runs in baseball history. And at times he carried the team on his shoulders when other good to great players were sagging. I say this as a Red Sox fan and not a particular Yankee supporter. I mean, he was dropped along with much inferior players such as JD Drew, Pat Burrell, and Matt Stairs--all decent players but not HOF worthy. As I said, in the end, Posada probably does not deserve to get in, but he deserved more votes than this.
It is interesting that both Clemens and Bonds cracked 50% for the first time, after starting in the high 20's five years ago. Peter Gammons said he decided that they competed at the highest level against players who likely were doping but not were caught like these two dopes were, so on these grounds he feels they deserve to be in. I buy that completely. Doping is as much a part of baseball's history as the dead ball era was, and to simply ignore the doping era by denying HOF enshrinement to the best of that era is to whitewash history and hope people forget about it. Better to put them in and discuss it--maybe their overall records are tainted (most homers, etc) but the fact remains they were the very best of their era.
Manny Ramirez is an interesting case, as is Curt Schilling. Both are real dickheads in different ways (as well as Clemens and Bonds), and I think both were unfairly hurt by this. There is no way Schilling's numbers should have dropped 10 points from last year. Ramirez was only in his first year, so I can see the low numbers as voters can only choose up to 10 players and there were others on the list longer who are deserving. But Ramirez put up some great numbers--better than Vlad--and dominated games. He was one of those hitters who could be counted on to change a game, and he soared in the biggest games.
I continue to wonder why McGriff and Sheffield get so little support. Sure, they played for small market teams. But each of them were dominant players who carried their teams and put up great numbers.
Mussina makes a much better case than Schilling, and I have a feeling that his stock is going to rise as Schilling's continues to fall. Moose might actually make it one day, but my guess is not by direct vote. Lee Smith drops off after 15 years, and that is a tough vote to watch. His numbers are borderline great, but in his prime he was as fearsome as Chapman is today.
Edgar Martinez helped define the DH position. He deserves to be in, just as some other marginal players in the past got in for redefining their positions (shortstops come to mind the most). But he is going to be hurt big time next year when Jim Thome gets on the ballot. 612 dingers. Yikes!
Chipper Jones may be a first ballot entry next year. He was no Mike Schmidt, but he was damned good for a long time. Plus he named his son Shea after the stadium--a rival team's park where he was regularly jeered as "Laaaarrryyyy" and booed mercilessly. Then again he tore up the field year after year.