2022 Baseball Hall of Fame

Train_of_Thought said:

ml1 said:

I'd be OK with most of those guys in the HOF

Respectfully, I wouldn’t.

yeah, "most" is a stretch.  I can see Arenado in the Hall when he's done (already has 9 GGs), and could finish with 500 HRs.  Also Nettles, who hit 390 HRs in an era when it wasn't that easy to do, as a guy who was an outstanding fielder.  The other guys come up short.


DaveSchmidt said:

(Sure, but Mathews is in the Hall, and Beltre is a lock, so don’t they make the case? The HR-to-doubles switch, though, puts Gary Gaetti and Aramis Ramirez in the club, too, and the likes of Graig Nettles, Darrell Evans and Matt Williams in the ballpark. Tim Wallach, Robin Ventura and even Evan Longoria are pretty close as is.)

All of this is exactly why l asked above about where that "bubble" line gets placed.  There will always be a tendency for downward creep and the Hall of Fame can become the Hall of Pretty Darned Good But Not Great.  


As we come up on the end of the open ballot period, with 27% if ballots known, David Ortiz (82%), Barry Bonds (80%), and Roger Clemens (79%) are over the 75% threshold for enshrinement.

Rolen is at 72% and Schilling is at 62%.  That is a huge jump for Rolen from last year (52% final vote total), which may indicate he gets in next year.  Schilling is down a bit from last year, which is not a good trend for him.

Todd Helton, Andruw Jones, and Manny Ramirez are all up from last year but still in middling range, as is ARod in his first year on the ballot.  Wagner so far is about the same as last year, but Vizquel has fallen off so much that he may be in danger of being disqualified from future voting, which surprises me.

I am not sure if there is something systematic about who makes their votes public and who does not, or in who votes at the last minute (Friday is the end of voting).  But if the 101 known ballots are a typical sample that can be generalized to the entire voting pool, then this is going to be a major sea-change in how the BBWAA views the steroid era players.  


mfpark said:

Schilling is down a bit from last year, which is not a good trend for him.

A trend he encouraged by asking to be removed from the ballot.


mfpark said:

I am not sure if there is something systematic about who makes their votes public and who does not, or in who votes at the last minute (Friday is the end of voting). But if the 101 known ballots are a typical sample that can be generalized to the entire voting pool, then this is going to be a major sea-change in how the BBWAA views the steroid era players.

A year ago, Bonds polled at 74% on the known ballots — and ended up at 62%. That was the pattern in a few spot checks I did on past votes: The more divisive candidates went down between the “release my ballot” stage and the final tally. My guess is that the stay-secret voters lean traditionalist.


Vizquel is going down due to the sexual harassment accusations of a batboy.


jfinnegan said:

Vizquel is going down due to the sexual harassment accusations of a batboy.

I had no idea about this.  Just read a report on the complaint.  Awful.


While one can make the argument that Bonds  was a Hall of Famer before the power spike, I would think  his plaque should likely include something about the steroids. Not sure how he would react to that.  


Redfruit said:

While one can make the argument that Bonds  was a Hall of Famer before the power spike, I would think  his plaque should likely include something about the steroids. Not sure how he would react to that.  

I cannot agree with this.  I have little doubt that Bonds was juicing.  His testimony that he did not realize he was using "clear" and that he did not juice was so far beyond belief that he almost went to jail over it.  It took several appeals before his perjury conviction was overturned.

But I also have little doubt that a lot more players were juicing in the 1980's than have ever been directly accused.  Like the use of greenies in the 1960's and 1970's, steroid use was likely very prevalent and gave a lot of folks a perceived edge.  Certainly steroids can help with recovery from fatigue and injury.  Steroids can make pitches go faster and batted balls travel farther.  But the ball still needs to be hit damned squarely, and the pitch still needs to move a lot in the zone.  The fact that most players never came close to achieving what Bonds and Clemens did in the same environment means a lot to me.

I would be in favor of a general plaque or display talking about the unproven but damned likely use of steroids in the era, the potential impacts on performance, and the certain impacts on health.  But not one that highlights Bonds specifically.  Even better, a plaque that goes into the willful failure of the MLB and Players Association to meaningfully address steroid use.


mfpark said:

I cannot agree with this.  I have little doubt that Bonds was juicing.  His testimony that he did not realize he was using "clear" and that he did not juice was so far beyond belief that he almost went to jail over it.  It took several appeals before his perjury conviction was overturned.

But I also have little doubt that a lot more players were juicing in the 1980's than have ever been directly accused.  Like the use of greenies in the 1960's and 1970's, steroid use was likely very prevalent and gave a lot of folks a perceived edge.  Certainly steroids can help with recovery from fatigue and injury.  Steroids can make pitches go faster and batted balls travel farther.  But the ball still needs to be hit damned squarely, and the pitch still needs to move a lot in the zone.  The fact that most players never came close to achieving what Bonds and Clemens did in the same environment means a lot to me.

I would be in favor of a general plaque or display talking about the unproven but damned likely use of steroids in the era, the potential impacts on performance, and the certain impacts on health.  But not one that highlights Bonds specifically.  Even better, a plaque that goes into the willful failure of the MLB and Players Association to meaningfully address steroid use.

I never understood why Selig was put into the Hall of Fame. He turned a blind eye to all of it as long as the owners were making money.


amphetamine use was rampant from the '50s until recently, so there are almost certainly dozens of PED users in the Hall already.  And fomer MLB pitcher Tom House claimed that steroid use began in baseball in the '60s.  So I find the refusal by many voters to cast a ballot for the likes of Barry Bonds to be selective sanctimony. 

and then there's this:

Does This Prove That Hank Aaron Was Juicing?

Short answer:  no.  But if there was that much innuendo about a player from the '90s (like Piazza), a lot of voters would have snubbed him.


mfpark said:

Redfruit said:

While one can make the argument that Bonds  was a Hall of Famer before the power spike, I would think  his plaque should likely include something about the steroids. Not sure how he would react to that.  

I cannot agree with this.  I have little doubt that Bonds was juicing.  His testimony that he did not realize he was using "clear" and that he did not juice was so far beyond belief that he almost went to jail over it.  It took several appeals before his perjury conviction was overturned.

But I also have little doubt that a lot more players were juicing in the 1980's than have ever been directly accused.  Like the use of greenies in the 1960's and 1970's, steroid use was likely very prevalent and gave a lot of folks a perceived edge.  Certainly steroids can help with recovery from fatigue and injury.  Steroids can make pitches go faster and batted balls travel farther.  But the ball still needs to be hit damned squarely, and the pitch still needs to move a lot in the zone.  The fact that most players never came close to achieving what Bonds and Clemens did in the same environment means a lot to me.

I would be in favor of a general plaque or display talking about the unproven but damned likely use of steroids in the era, the potential impacts on performance, and the certain impacts on health.  But not one that highlights Bonds specifically.  Even better, a plaque that goes into the willful failure of the MLB and Players Association to meaningfully address steroid use.

in 2004, Barry Bonds had more intentional walks than swings and misses.


jfinnegan said:

mfpark said:

I cannot agree with this.  I have little doubt that Bonds was juicing.  His testimony that he did not realize he was using "clear" and that he did not juice was so far beyond belief that he almost went to jail over it.  It took several appeals before his perjury conviction was overturned.

But I also have little doubt that a lot more players were juicing in the 1980's than have ever been directly accused.  Like the use of greenies in the 1960's and 1970's, steroid use was likely very prevalent and gave a lot of folks a perceived edge.  Certainly steroids can help with recovery from fatigue and injury.  Steroids can make pitches go faster and batted balls travel farther.  But the ball still needs to be hit damned squarely, and the pitch still needs to move a lot in the zone.  The fact that most players never came close to achieving what Bonds and Clemens did in the same environment means a lot to me.

I would be in favor of a general plaque or display talking about the unproven but damned likely use of steroids in the era, the potential impacts on performance, and the certain impacts on health.  But not one that highlights Bonds specifically.  Even better, a plaque that goes into the willful failure of the MLB and Players Association to meaningfully address steroid use.

I never understood why Selig was put into the Hall of Fame. He turned a blind eye to all of it as long as the owners were making money.

Amen.  Selig was terrible.  He orchestrated a coup to get rid of Fay Vincent, kept his ownership of the Brewers when he was commish, used his power as commish to increase the value of the Brewers, and ignored the steroid abuse because it made him and the other owners a lot more money.  He was corrupt, plain and simple.  He used the Office of the Commissioner to line his own pockets.


Steroids helped Barry go from a great player to an all-time top 3 player.  His numbers after turning 35 are unnatural (see Albert Pujols' decline and compare to Bonds stats).  Should that keep him out of the HOF?  I wish he would just admit to what he did. Same for some of these other guys. 

mfpark said:

Redfruit said:

While one can make the argument that Bonds  was a Hall of Famer before the power spike, I would think  his plaque should likely include something about the steroids. Not sure how he would react to that.  

I cannot agree with this.  I have little doubt that Bonds was juicing.  His testimony that he did not realize he was using "clear" and that he did not juice was so far beyond belief that he almost went to jail over it.  It took several appeals before his perjury conviction was overturned.

But I also have little doubt that a lot more players were juicing in the 1980's than have ever been directly accused.  Like the use of greenies in the 1960's and 1970's, steroid use was likely very prevalent and gave a lot of folks a perceived edge.  Certainly steroids can help with recovery from fatigue and injury.  Steroids can make pitches go faster and batted balls travel farther.  But the ball still needs to be hit damned squarely, and the pitch still needs to move a lot in the zone.  The fact that most players never came close to achieving what Bonds and Clemens did in the same environment means a lot to me.

I would be in favor of a general plaque or display talking about the unproven but damned likely use of steroids in the era, the potential impacts on performance, and the certain impacts on health.  But not one that highlights Bonds specifically.  Even better, a plaque that goes into the willful failure of the MLB and Players Association to meaningfully address steroid use.

you can’t agree to what? You said a lot. But what specifically is your disagreement? you believe bonds always juiced or that his plague should not have an *???


Redfruit said:

you can’t agree to what? You said a lot. But what specifically is your disagreement? you believe bonds always juiced or that his plague should not have an *???

His plaque should not be singled out.  


35% of the votes known and Ortiz, Bonds, and Clemens still over the threshold.

Rolen remains just south of the cut off.

Schilling has fallen even farther behind.

But 65% still unknown, so...........


43% of votes in and Bonds (77%) and Clemens (76%).  Ortiz at 83%.  Rolen at 69%.


So it's a popularity contest? What a joke. 


mfpark said:

43% of votes in and Bonds (77%) and Clemens (76%).  Ortiz at 83%.  Rolen at 69%.

this probably means Bonds and Clemens will not be admitted.  It seems to have historically been the case that:

DaveSchmidt said:

A year ago, Bonds polled at 74% on the known ballots — and ended up at 62%. That was the pattern in a few spot checks I did on past votes: The more divisive candidates went down between the “release my ballot” stage and the final tally. My guess is that the stay-secret voters lean traditionalist.


ml1 said:

mfpark said:

43% of votes in and Bonds (77%) and Clemens (76%).  Ortiz at 83%.  Rolen at 69%.

this probably means Bonds and Clemens will not be admitted.  It seems to have historically been the case that:

DaveSchmidt said:

A year ago, Bonds polled at 74% on the known ballots — and ended up at 62%. That was the pattern in a few spot checks I did on past votes: The more divisive candidates went down between the “release my ballot” stage and the final tally. My guess is that the stay-secret voters lean traditionalist.

Yup.  They are sinking fast and as you and Dave point out they are likely done.


mfpark said:

ml1 said:

mfpark said:

43% of votes in and Bonds (77%) and Clemens (76%).  Ortiz at 83%.  Rolen at 69%.

this probably means Bonds and Clemens will not be admitted.  It seems to have historically been the case that:

DaveSchmidt said:

A year ago, Bonds polled at 74% on the known ballots — and ended up at 62%. That was the pattern in a few spot checks I did on past votes: The more divisive candidates went down between the “release my ballot” stage and the final tally. My guess is that the stay-secret voters lean traditionalist.

Yup.  They are sinking fast and as you and Dave point out they are likely done.

IMHO it's a travesty that they won't be in the Hall. 


ml1 said:

mfpark said:

ml1 said:

mfpark said:

43% of votes in and Bonds (77%) and Clemens (76%).  Ortiz at 83%.  Rolen at 69%.

this probably means Bonds and Clemens will not be admitted.  It seems to have historically been the case that:

DaveSchmidt said:

A year ago, Bonds polled at 74% on the known ballots — and ended up at 62%. That was the pattern in a few spot checks I did on past votes: The more divisive candidates went down between the “release my ballot” stage and the final tally. My guess is that the stay-secret voters lean traditionalist.

Yup.  They are sinking fast and as you and Dave point out they are likely done.

IMHO it's a travesty that they won't be in the Hall. 

They will get voted in by the Veteran's Committee eventually.


There really is no rational way for somebody to vote in Ortiz and not vote in Bonds and Clemens. The writers are doing a good job of making the HOF a laughingstock. 


jfinnegan said:

There really is no rational way for somebody to vote in Ortiz and not vote in Bonds and Clemens. The writers are doing a good job of making the HOF a laughingstock. 

seriously.

I think Papi belongs, but I'd argue there is as much evidence (maybe more) that he used PEDs as Bonds and Clemens.  To vote for Ortiz and not the others is insane.


I mean let’s be honest. He’s in because he’s pretty universally recognized as a nice guy and the other two aren’t.

ml1 said:

jfinnegan said:

There really is no rational way for somebody to vote in Ortiz and not vote in Bonds and Clemens. The writers are doing a good job of making the HOF a laughingstock. 

seriously.

I think Papi belongs, but I'd argue there is as much evidence (maybe more) that he used PEDs as Bonds and Clemens.  To vote for Ortiz and not the others is insane.


RobB said:

I mean let’s be honest. He’s in because he’s pretty universally recognized as a nice guy and the other two aren’t.

ml1 said:

jfinnegan said:

There really is no rational way for somebody to vote in Ortiz and not vote in Bonds and Clemens. The writers are doing a good job of making the HOF a laughingstock. 

seriously.

I think Papi belongs, but I'd argue there is as much evidence (maybe more) that he used PEDs as Bonds and Clemens.  To vote for Ortiz and not the others is insane.

yup.


RobB said:

obviously he got in because he's a nice guy, but then they might as well go back and start taking guys like Ty Cobb out. It seems a bit suspicious to me that Ortiz got waived by one team and all of a sudden becomes a great player at 27 years old. Not to mention the evidence that he took PEDs. I don't think being a nice guy is one of the criteria for being in the HOF.  


jfinnegan said:

RobB said:

obviously he got in because he's a nice guy, but then they might as well go back and start taking guys like Ty Cobb out. It seems a bit suspicious to me that Ortiz got waived by one team and all of a sudden becomes a great player at 27 years old. Not to mention the evidence that he took PEDs. I don't think being a nice guy is one of the criteria for being in the HOF.  

I don't think being nice is criteria for being in the HOF either.  Being a nice guy helps voters give Ortiz benefit of the doubt and makes it easier to overlook his flaws.  


jfinnegan said:

It seems a bit suspicious to me that Ortiz got waived by one team and all of a sudden becomes a great player at 27 years old. Not to mention the evidence that he took PEDs. I don't think being a nice guy is one of the criteria for being in the HOF.

The season before the Twins released him, Ortiz’s OPS+ was 20 percent above the league average.

“So what were the Twins thinking in December 2002?

“That’s essentially the question that Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe asked of Twins GM Terry Ryan earlier this year. Cafardo didn’t get a very definitive answer, but his story raises three possibilities for the release of Ortiz: a bad baseball decision, friction between then-manager Tom Kelly and Ortiz, or it came down to money.”

https://www.boston.com/sports/david-ortiz/2022/01/26/david-ortiz-2003-ped-test-response-hall-of-fame-vote/

There was a leap to an OPS+ of 144 in 2003, and it stayed up around there or higher for most of the rest of his career. (FWIW, look at Dale Murphy’s OPS+, for example, before and after age 26.)

As for the PED evidence, did it go beyond the 2003 test? ”I think that the feeling was, at the time that name was leaked, that it was important to make people understand that even if your name was on that list, that it was entirely possible that you were not a positive,” said Rob Manfred. “I do know that he’s never been a positive at any point under our program.”


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.