2020 MLB Hall of Fame News and Notes

[E5 Yaz]

It will take fewer years for Papi to get it than it did for Edgar, based on two factors:

The newer voting demographic better understands the value of great DHs.
Papa's postseason heroics over several seasons.

But it probably won't be the first year and it won't be anywhere close to unanimous

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

I think his iconic status is very meaningful. Post-season hero, our F'ing city, the nickname, the personality, survived a damn murder attempt.
It won't be unanimous, or probably not particularly close, but I really think he'll get in on the first ballot.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

I understand why he is still so low, but I'm sad to see Manny so far away from the ballot. I don't know if someone who tested positive for PEDs will ever get in, but Manny, steroids and all, is one of the most underrated hitters of all-time. With the exception of Bonds and A-Rod, his career numbers blow away those of his contemporaries and he was just such a complete hitter. He is ninth all-time in career OPS, and on that list, only two players (Bonds and Trout) played after 1960. He is easily one of the most naturally talented hitters of the last 50 years.

Sheffield is ahead of him in the voting, which doesn't feel right. Sheffield never tested positive, but the links to him and steroid use are fairly strong, and if you can acknowledge that both guys are not in the HoF because of steroid use; Manny was clearly a superior player and IDK if he will ever get in but I would vote for him in a heartbeat.

I feel the same way because much like how can you vote for Clemens but not Bonds (and vice versa), I'm not sure how you can vote for Sheffield but not Manny. Yes, the elephant in the room is that Manny was popped twice for PEDs later in his career; but that was after he was pretty much done playing and was hanging around trying to get a job. And I'm not sure how he could be using PEDs for the first 15 years (or so) and pass tests, but all of a sudden get sloppy during his last few seasons. It seems to me that the PED route was only taken once he got older.

And yes, that's shitty. But Sheffield is no saint either. He trained with Bonds in the offseason, he admitted to the BALCO grand jury that he took the cream and the clear but he "wasn't sure what either of them did". I'm not sure why ignorance (at best) exonerates him, but in the mind of some voters, I guess it does.

BTW, I'm not advocating for Manny to be included and Sheffield to be on the outside. I think that both players are worthy of a Hall of Fame induction. Both were very similar players: right-handed, amongst the best hitters of their day, allergic to defense, played for multiple teams, multiple all-stars, perennial MVP candidates and were pretty decent in the post season. But Manny's career was better: 312/411/585 154 OPS+ and 555 homers compared to Sheff's 292/393/514 140 OPS+ and 509 homers (in three less seasons). I know this is not hard numbers, but I don't think that the Red Sox ever employed a better right handed hitter than Manny Ramirez, the dude was a beast. To keep him out of the HoF is criminal.

 

[coremiller]

"We" determine it however "we" want to.

So far the only case I've seen for Martinez being better involves a small edge in advanced stats that try to take park effect into account.

The eye test and the standard stats favor one guy pretty clearly, and the advanced metrics are close...I'm going with Ortiz. And Martinez is certainly not "clearly" better by any standard - which was the claim upthread.

They're both great players, so no knock on Edgar. But throw the postseason heroics on top of all of the above and this is not even a close comparison.

The advanced metrics aren't that close. The biggest difference between the two is that Martinez had a career OBP of .418, while Ortiz was .380. OBP is the single most important offensive stat, and 38 points of OBP is a big difference. Martinez got on base a lot more often, and while Ortiz slugged a bit better, getting on base more often is more important than slugging. Martinez is 32nd all-time win wRC+ (essentially OPS+ with proper OBP/slugging weights), while Ortiz is 74th. The result is that Martinez generated about 75 more runs on offense over his career than Ortiz.

Martinez was also a solid defender early in his career, while Ortiz never was. While both have overall negative career defensive value, Ortiz has much more negative defensive value for his career than Martinez.

I also think it matters that the Red Sox viewed Ortiz's defense as so terrible/Ortiz as so fragile it was worth playing Manny Ramirez in the field in order to DH Ortiz, even though Ramirez was a historically terrible defender. I think the standard DH positional adjustment in WAR metrics is probably not severe enough for Ortiz as a result. E.g. from 2003-07 bWAR has Ortiz as -6.2 wins on defense (almost all due to the positional penalty, since Ortiz had very few innings in the field), and Ramirez -8.7. Ortiz should probably be docked a couple of additional wins for forcing the Red Sox to play Manny in the field.

 

[E5 Yaz]

I think his iconic status is very meaningful. Post-season hero, our F'ing city, the nickname, the personality, survived a damn murder attempt.
It won't be unanimous, or probably not particularly close, but I really think he'll get in on the first ballot.

I think it depends on how many voters think the Mitchell list is a valid detriment. Over time, what that report was all about, and the league policies and rules at that moment, has become muddied into the entire steroids-era muck

I'm guessing low to mid 80s percentage range

 

[Kliq]

I feel the same way because much like how can you vote for Clemens but not Bonds (and vice versa), I'm not sure how you can vote for Sheffield but not Manny. Yes, the elephant in the room is that Manny was popped twice for PEDs later in his career; but that was after he was pretty much done playing and was hanging around trying to get a job. And I'm not sure how he could be using PEDs for the first 15 years (or so) and pass tests, but all of a sudden get sloppy during his last few seasons. It seems to me that the PED route was only taken once he got older.

And yes, that's shitty. But Sheffield is no saint either. He trained with Bonds in the offseason, he admitted to the BALCO grand jury that he took the cream and the clear but he "wasn't sure what either of them did". I'm not sure why ignorance (at best) exonerates him, but in the mind of some voters, I guess it does.

BTW, I'm not advocating for Manny to be included and Sheffield to be on the outside. I think that both players are worthy of a Hall of Fame induction. Both were very similar players: right-handed, amongst the best hitters of their day, allergic to defense, played for multiple teams, multiple all-stars, perennial MVP candidates and were pretty decent in the post season. But Manny's career was better: 312/411/585 154 OPS+ and 555 homers compared to Sheff's 292/393/514 140 OPS+ and 509 homers (in three less seasons). I know this is not hard numbers, but I don't think that the Red Sox ever employed a better right handed hitter than Manny Ramirez, the dude was a beast. To keep him out of the HoF is criminal.

Agreed. My point is that Manny and Sheffield have basically similar cases, with Manny having a small edge as a better overall hitter. On pure statistical resume alone, both guys are slam-dunk HoF players, yet they are both not in, due to the steroid connection. That is part of the problem with the whole steroid era and the Hall of Fame, each individual case comes with a big argument about when a guy did steroids, how long they did it for, how much it helped them, etc. You can make the case that Sheffield never failed a test and Manny did, so Manny was a lot worse than Sheffield, and you can make the case that Manny only failed a drug test at the end of his career when he was washed, and Sheffield has strong links to steroids during his prime.

 

[SirPsychoSquints]

"We" determine it however "we" want to.

So far the only case I've seen for Martinez being better involves a small edge in advanced stats that try to take park effect into account.

The eye test and the standard stats favor one guy pretty clearly, and the advanced metrics are close...I'm going with Ortiz. And Martinez is certainly not "clearly" better by any standard - which was the claim upthread.

They're both great players, so no knock on Edgar. But throw the postseason heroics on top of all of the above and this is not even a close comparison.

The advanced metrics aren't that close. The biggest difference between the two is that Martinez had a career OBP of .418, while Ortiz was .380. OBP is the single most important offensive stat, and 38 points of OBP is a big difference. Martinez got on base a lot more often, and while Ortiz slugged a bit better, getting on base more often is more important than slugging. Martinez is 32nd all-time win wRC+ (essentially OPS+ with proper OBP/slugging weights), while Ortiz is 74th. The result is that Martinez generated about 75 more runs on offense over his career than Ortiz.

Martinez was also a solid defender early in his career, while Ortiz never was. While both have overall negative career defensive value, Ortiz has much more negative defensive value for his career than Martinez.

I also think it matters that the Red Sox viewed Ortiz's defense as so terrible/Ortiz as so fragile it was worth playing Manny Ramirez in the field in order to DH Ortiz, even though Ramirez was a historically terrible defender. I think the standard DH positional adjustment in WAR metrics is probably not severe enough for Ortiz as a result. E.g. from 2003-07 bWAR has Ortiz as -6.2 wins on defense (almost all due to the positional penalty, since Ortiz had very few innings in the field), and Ramirez -8.7. Ortiz should probably be docked a couple of additional wins for forcing the Red Sox to play Manny in the field.

What Core said. Also, framed in your terms only, who was a better hitter at their peak? Probably Edgar. His 185 OPS+ in 1995 led the league and is higher than Ortiz's best season (173 in half a season or 171 in a full season). It also is, again, more heavily weighted towards OBP than Ortiz's was.

Similarly, you can look at each player's best season in Rbat - Edgar's 1995 of 68 in a shortened season is better than Ortiz's best season of 58 in 2007. Edgar's 1996 of 62 was also stronger than Ortiz's best season. Rbat is an "above average" metric.

Similarly, you can look at oWAR. Edgar has seasons of 7.3, 7.1 and 6.5, while Ortiz's best years are 6.5, 5.7 and 5.4.

So yeah - both career (despite Edgar playing less, partly due to the strike) and peak, Edgar was a more productive and better hitter in the regular season.

Edit: Again, just looking at total career Rbat, Edgar beats out Ortiz 531 to 455. Ortiz's increased playing time reduces that 76 run edge (over average) to 29 runs (above replacement). And this ignores Edgar's superior (less bad) fielding and base-running.

 

[YTF]

Well I wouldn't have left Jeter off the ballot, but I think the HOF committee has been a very tough crowd in the past. The link is to the 1949 ballot, in which the likes of Mel Ott (105WAR) , Jimmy Foxx (95WAR), Charlie Gehringer (80WAR), Al Simmons, Hank Greenberg didn't even get in.

Willie Mays (156WAR) was first ballot but apparently not everybody deemed him worthy as indicated by 94.7% vote total.

I don't dispute the point you're trying to make, but baseball wasn't viewed as it is today. Those guys weren't on TV everyday. The games, highlight shows, talking heads armed with metrics, the 24/7 coverage, etc... it just wasn't there. How many games per year did HOF voters actually see some of these players play? What were the voting guidelines of those early years? Nobody knew what WAR was. Racism may have played a greater role than it might today. Just as it's difficult to compare players from different eras, it may be difficult to compare the HOF voting practices from different eras. I believe that currently a voter can vote for up to 10 players. How many from that era could have been voted for. Surely rules and standards changed over the years. It's not really as cut and dry as some of us make it seem when comparing vote percentages from yesteryear to today.

 

[E5 Yaz]

I don't dispute the point you're trying to make, but baseball wasn't viewed as it is today. Those guys weren't on TV everyday. The games, highlight shows, talking heads armed with metrics, the 24/7 coverage, etc... it just wasn't there. How many games per year did HOF voters actually see some of these players play? What were the voting guidelines of those early years? Nobody knew what WAR was. Racism may have played a greater role than it might today. Just as it's difficult to compare players from different eras, it may be difficult to compare the HOF voting practices from different eras. I believe that currently a voter can vote for up to 10 players. How many from that era could have been voted for. Surely rules and standards changed over the years. It's not really as cut and dry as some of us make it seem when comparing vote percentages from yesteryear to today.

Then what accounts for Ken Griffey Jr not be unanimous

 

[KiltedFool]

He wore his cap backwards during batting practice, which is a stoning offense to the cranky old fuckers. Just like Sabathia's crooked cap was a mortal insult to the sanctity of the game.

 

[Plympton91]

I also think it matters that the Red Sox viewed Ortiz's defense as so terrible/Ortiz as so fragile it was worth playing Manny Ramirez in the field in order to DH Ortiz, even though Ramirez was a historically terrible defender. I think the standard DH positional adjustment in WAR metrics is probably not severe enough for Ortiz as a result. E.g. from 2003-07 bWAR has Ortiz as -6.2 wins on defense (almost all due to the positional penalty, since Ortiz had very few innings in the field), and Ramirez -8.7. Ortiz should probably be docked a couple of additional wins for forcing the Red Sox to play Manny in the field.

It’s not that simple.

You have to also look at the alternatives the Red Sox had for first base and left field when the two overlapped from 2003-2009.

During the prime of Ortiz’s career 2003-2011, the Red Sox first basemen were Millar, Youkilis, and Gonzalez, all of whom were incredibly durable. Youk could have moved to 3B in 2006 on, I suppose, but that would have displaced Lowell or Beltre (Mueller was there 2003-2005). And, when Youk did go to 3B to accommodate Gonzalez, his career was over 18 months later. It is extremely unlikely that the Red Sox could have found an alternative LF with more value than those guys, and they didn’t develop anyone out there who could take over, while their fourth outfielders were a succession of players to platoon with Trot Nixon.

So, the reason Ortiz didn’t play 1B for Boston while Manny roamed LF was because Boston was blessed with good first basement and good 3B they fell into (Millar, Mueller, Lowell) or developed (Youk), while Manny Ortez were on the roster together.

 

[lexrageorge]

Things in favor of Ortiz gaining admission, ranked in order of importance:

1.) Edgar getting in. This by far is the most important factor, as it broke the anti-DH firewall. And with the newer voters being less anti-DH than the dinosaurs, the voter demographics favor Ortiz. Overall, his career numbers by some metrics are behind those of Martinez, but it's not like there's a yawning gap, however.

2.) Iconic playoff moments for a big market team, aka the "Jeter affect". A 1.372 OPS over 3 World Series, and 0.947 OPS and 17 HR's over 85 playoff games is not easily ignored. Schilling will likely benefit from this in 2021 voting; coming up big in the big moments does matter to some voters.

3.) His iconic status in his home country. All you need to know is that the President of the DR was at Ortiz's retirement ceremony.

4.) His positive relationship with the media, even the local guys. He will probably sweep the Boston writers, even those that don't vote for Bonds/Clemens. Mainly because of #2, but being a good interview never hurts. If Bonds was a grade-A nice guy (hint, he ain't), would he have been voted in by now? Just a thought.

5.) Dearth of deserving new candidates in the 3 years spanning the year before and after his first year of eligibility.

6.) His PED issues aren't as "front and center" as they are with guys like Clemens, Sheffield, and Bonds.

Now, the issues he will have attracting votes:

1.) The leaked list of names that failed the 2003 PED test. It sucks that his name was ever leaked, as the list never should have been made available to anyone outside MLB and the MLBPA. The protocols for that sample testing were not intended to suggest guilt or innocence of individuals. But that won't matter to the strident anti-PED crowd.

<big gap>

<Another big gap just for kicks>

2.) He was a DH. I don't believe this is a huge issue, but it does mean his value is tied up entirely in his batting. I don't subscribe to the theory that Ortiz forced the Sox to play Manny in left, just because that team was still good enough to win two titles and came within a David Price and a Grady Little of two more World Series appearances.

3.) His numbers weren't quite as good as Edgar's. Could cost him a couple of votes on the margins.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Things in favor of Ortiz gaining admission, ranked in order of importance:

1.) Edgar getting in. This by far is the most important factor, as it broke the anti-DH firewall. And with the newer voters being less anti-DH than the dinosaurs, the voter demographics favor Ortiz. Overall, his career numbers by some metrics are behind those of Martinez, but it's not like there's a yawning gap, however.

2.) Iconic playoff moments for a big market team, aka the "Jeter affect". A 1.372 OPS over 3 World Series, and 0.947 OPS and 17 HR's over 85 playoff games is not easily ignored. Schilling will likely benefit from this in 2021 voting; coming up big in the big moments does matter to some voters.

3.) His iconic status in his home country. All you need to know is that the President of the DR was at Ortiz's retirement ceremony.

4.) His positive relationship with the media, even the local guys. He will probably sweep the Boston writers, even those that don't vote for Bonds/Clemens. Mainly because of #2, but being a good interview never hurts. If Bonds was a grade-A nice guy (hint, he ain't), would he have been voted in by now? Just a thought.

5.) Dearth of deserving new candidates in the 3 years spanning the year before and after his first year of eligibility.

6.) His PED issues aren't as "front and center" as they are with guys like Clemens, Sheffield, and Bonds.

Now, the issues he will have attracting votes:

1.) The leaked list of names that failed the 2003 PED test. It sucks that his name was ever leaked, as the list never should have been made available to anyone outside MLB and the MLBPA. The protocols for that sample testing were not intended to suggest guilt or innocence of individuals. But that won't matter to the strident anti-PED crowd.

<big gap>

<Another big gap just for kicks>

2.) He was a DH. I don't believe this is a huge issue, but it does mean his value is tied up entirely in his batting. I don't subscribe to the theory that Ortiz forced the Sox to play Manny in left, just because that team was still good enough to win two titles and came within a David Price and a Grady Little of two more World Series appearances.

3.) His numbers weren't quite as good as Edgar's. Could cost him a couple of votes on the margins.

I don't think anyone has suggested he won't get in

 

[coremiller]

It’s not that simple.

You have to also look at the alternatives the Red Sox had for first base and left field when the two overlapped from 2003-2009.

During the prime of Ortiz’s career 2003-2011, the Red Sox first basemen were Millar, Youkilis, and Gonzalez, all of whom were incredibly durable. Youk could have moved to 3B in 2006 on, I suppose, but that would have displaced Lowell or Beltre (Mueller was there 2003-2005). And, when Youk did go to 3B to accommodate Gonzalez, his career was over 18 months later. It is extremely unlikely that the Red Sox could have found an alternative LF with more value than those guys, and they didn’t develop anyone out there who could take over, while their fourth outfielders were a succession of players to platoon with Trot Nixon.

So, the reason Ortiz didn’t play 1B for Boston while Manny roamed LF was because Boston was blessed with good first basement and good 3B they fell into (Millar, Mueller, Lowell) or developed (Youk), while Manny Ortez were on the roster together.

In 03-05, if they felt Ortiz could handle 1B they could have simply moved Millar to LF, Ortiz to 1B, and Ramirez to DH. Millar played 140 games in the outfield in 03-05, mostly platooning with Nixon in right. He wasn't good defensively either but he was better than Ramirez.

 

[amRadio]

A couple people have asserted in this thread that Ortiz was named in the Mitchell report. That isn't correct. The Ortiz controversy came from a NYT report in 2009. The Mitchell report did not name a single Red Sox player, actually.

 

[lexrageorge]

I don't think anyone has suggested he won't get in

But people were speculating as to whether he will get in first ballot, or if it will be a slog over many years. I've heard both in this thread. I simply raised the points that voters will look at when they vet his candidacy, some of which are in his favor, and others that are not.

 

[tims4wins]

In 03-05, if they felt Ortiz could handle 1B they could have simply moved Millar to LF, Ortiz to 1B, and Ramirez to DH. Millar played 140 games in the outfield in 03-05, mostly platooning with Nixon in right. He wasn't good defensively either but he was better than Ramirez.

It wasn't just about defensive skill though, it was about preserving his body. It's a complicated discussion.

 

[Plympton91]

In 03-05, if they felt Ortiz could handle 1B they could have simply moved Millar to LF, Ortiz to 1B, and Ramirez to DH. Millar played 140 games in the outfield in 03-05, mostly platooning with Nixon in right. He wasn't good defensively either but he was better than Ramirez.

It wasn't just about defensive skill though, it was about preserving his body. It's a complicated discussion.

You also have to look across the 3 positions too. Would you rather have a good first baseman and a lousy leftfielder (Millar-Ramirez) or an average firstbaseman and a nearly as lousy leftfielder (Ortiz-Millar). I’d question whether Millar was better even; I think the defensive range stats for Fenway LF are so hopelessly compromised as to be worthless, and Manny had a great arm while Millar had a noodle.

I’d argue the upgrade at 1B was worth more than the downgrade in LF, because of Millar, not because of Ortiz.

 

[SemperFidelisSox]

It’s not a great argument, but Ortiz played 14 seasons when steroid testing was implemented, and still put up HOF numbers. Bonds, Clemens, etc had steroid allegations and connections at the end of their careers, which called into question everything they had ever accomplished. Like I said, not a great argument, but at least Ortiz can say “I put these numbers up while being tested every week.” I think that above all separates him from the “steroid guys” sitting on the outside looking in.

 

[YTF]

Then what accounts for Ken Griffey Jr not be unanimous

You'd have to ask the three guys who didn't vote for him. As with the lone Jeter dissenter I'd be interested in seeing those their ballots.

 

[Marciano490]

I feel the same way because much like how can you vote for Clemens but not Bonds (and vice versa), I'm not sure how you can vote for Sheffield but not Manny. Yes, the elephant in the room is that Manny was popped twice for PEDs later in his career; but that was after he was pretty much done playing and was hanging around trying to get a job. And I'm not sure how he could be using PEDs for the first 15 years (or so) and pass tests, but all of a sudden get sloppy during his last few seasons. It seems to me that the PED route was only taken once he got older.

And yes, that's shitty. But Sheffield is no saint either. He trained with Bonds in the offseason, he admitted to the BALCO grand jury that he took the cream and the clear but he "wasn't sure what either of them did". I'm not sure why ignorance (at best) exonerates him, but in the mind of some voters, I guess it does.

BTW, I'm not advocating for Manny to be included and Sheffield to be on the outside. I think that both players are worthy of a Hall of Fame induction. Both were very similar players: right-handed, amongst the best hitters of their day, allergic to defense, played for multiple teams, multiple all-stars, perennial MVP candidates and were pretty decent in the post season. But Manny's career was better: 312/411/585 154 OPS+ and 555 homers compared to Sheff's 292/393/514 140 OPS+ and 509 homers (in three less seasons). I know this is not hard numbers, but I don't think that the Red Sox ever employed a better right handed hitter than Manny Ramirez, the dude was a beast. To keep him out of the HoF is criminal.

Gut feeling, Sheffield was a far worse steroid abuser than Manny.

First, eye test - Manny always had a fuller frame. It’s hard to tell with his baggy jerseys, but Manny had a grown man’s buddy from like age 16. Sheffield was skinnier in his 20’s then huge as he got older.

Also, Sheffield wasn’t a consistent 30+ homer a year guy till he turned 30. He had one season over 30 and one over 40 before that, but also a bunch of 20 homer seasons. Once he hit 30, he hit more than 30 homers every year till he got old.

Manny, meanwhile, was hitting 30+ home runs every year from his early 20s on.

Finally, Sheffield is smart. He went to Balco and got cutting edge roids and advice as to how to take and conceal them.

I loved Manny, but the guy is dumb. One of the dumbest people I’ve ever met. People used to ask me if I thought Tyson juiced, and I’d point to his failed weed test as evidence he hadn’t. If you can’t fake a weed test, you can’t get away with surreptitiously taking juice. If Manny was taking PEDs earlier in his career, he would’ve gotten caught.

Manny probably got park ‘roids.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

It’s not a great argument, but Ortiz played 14 seasons when steroid testing was implemented, and still put up HOF numbers. Bonds, Clemens, etc had steroid allegations and connections at the end of their careers, which called into question everything they had ever accomplished. Like I said, not a great argument, but at least Ortiz can say “I put these numbers up while being tested every week.” I think that above all separates him from the “steroid guys” sitting on the outside looking in.

It's not a great argument for the simple fact that the people making the steroids are always ahead of the tests. How long did ARod play "clean" before getting busted again, which wasn't even by a test?

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

You'd have to ask the three guys who didn't vote for him. As with the lone Jeter dissenter I'd be interested in seeing those their ballots.

Does it matter? He got in. They don't list vote total on their plaque.

 

[YTF]

Nope, it's a general curiosity into the thought process.

 

[kelpapa]

I loved Manny, but the guy is dumb. One of the dumbest people I’ve ever met. People used to ask me if I thought Tyson juiced, and I’d point to his failed weed test as evidence he hadn’t. If you can’t fake a weed test, you can’t get away with surreptitiously taking juice. If Manny was taking PEDs earlier in his career, he would’ve gotten caught.

Now we need your dumb Manny stories.

 

[Marciano490]

Now we need your dumb Manny stories.

I’ve told this before, but he and a woman I assume was his wife used to come to SoHo on Sundays for brunch when I was a bouncer there forever ago.

First time he came, he parked in the CVS lot across the street. They were always assholes about towing, but I figured maybe they’d leave his car alone. Like tow companies have lists of celebs’ cars.

Anyways, they called a truck, so I ran and told
Manny what was happening and that he couldn’t park there. He ran out and moved his car.

Next week, he comes in and parks at the CVS. I remind him they’ll tow his car. He runs back and moves it.

Two weeks later, he comes back and parks at the CVS. “Hey, sorry Manny, you can’t park there....”

The next week... you get the idea.

Super nice dude, though.

 

[reggiecleveland]

I loved Manny, but the guy is dumb. One of the dumbest people I’ve ever met. People used to ask me if I thought Tyson juiced, and I’d point to his failed weed test as evidence he hadn’t. If you can’t fake a weed test, you can’t get away with surreptitiously taking juice. If Manny was taking PEDs earlier in his career, he would’ve gotten caught.

Manny probably got park ‘roids.

This my thought too. His juice efforts were so bad. Looked to me like a guy trying to save his career, but without a clue.

 

[Marciano490]

This my thought too. His juice efforts were so bad. Looked to me like a guy trying to save his career, but without a clue.

Yeah, I mean it’s possible Manny or his team found him a guy to write out protocols, teach him how to beat tests and made sure that he traveled with his gear and dosed appropriately.

Keep in mind, an average steroid cycle lasts 12-14 weeks followed by post-cycle therapy to get your shit working again. Depending on the length of the ester, the athlete would do a shot a week to daily shots. Orals are usually taken daily.

So, that’d require Manny following all the necessary steps to not only benefit from the juice, but also beat tests.

Again, maybe someone was on hand constantly to make sure that happened.

But, I’m guessing when he got older he just gave someone in his circle a few thousand dollars and told him to bring him stuff. Maybe he didn’t even ask and was just offered juice.

 

[amRadio]

Not that my vote matters - it doesn't exist - but I can't ever see myself being a 'Yes' on Manny. My mom was his realtor when he came to Boston originally, we have pictures with him laying around somewhere. Big sentimental connection there. The repeated failed tests are just such a bad look to me that I can't get on board with it. If you wagged your finger at Congress or got popped over and over again, it's hard to take your accomplishments seriously at that point.

This may or may not be interesting but I do have a card of his from shortly after he was drafted when he came up with Cleveland. It has a blurb on the back raving about his speed on the bases and how he will one day be one of the most exciting "table setters" in the game. Kinda neat.

 

[Sad Sam Jones]

They had an idiot writing the blurbs on their cards then, because Manny was a helluva power hitter coming right out of high school and was never known for his speed (or effort) on the field. He hit 19 home runs at age 19 in just 59 rookie ball games and then 33 across 3 levels when he reached the majors at 21.

He was also infamous for his parking and speeding tickets in Cleveland... he once got 4 tickets in one stop, but misunderstood the cop and offered him tickets for an Indians game. The story goes that one ticket was for an illegal U-turn following the initial stop, and the cop finally just ignored it when Manny made another illegal U-turn following the second stop.

 

[OurF'ingCity]

Not that my vote matters - it doesn't exist - but I can't ever see myself being a 'Yes' on Manny. My mom was his realtor when he came to Boston originally, we have pictures with him laying around somewhere. Big sentimental connection there. The repeated failed tests are just such a bad look to me that I can't get on board with it. If you wagged your finger at Congress or got popped over and over again, it's hard to take your accomplishments seriously at that point.

Isn't the punishment for Manny re: steroids already baked into his stats? He missed 50 games with the Dodgers when he was still putting up solid numbers. And the second suspension ended his career when otherwise he might have accumulated a bit more in the counting-stats categories (to the extent anyone still cares about those), although he was virtually done before the second suspension anyway. I guess you could say it calls into question whether he was using in prior seasons too, but testing started in 2004-05 and he didn't fail a test until 2009 (and to the extent he was using prior to testing, he falls into the murky area where it's virtually impossible to assign blame given how routine PED use was).

 

[The_Powa_of_Seiji_Ozawa]

Just saw ESPN's MLB page, and it is an insufferable shrine to Jeter at the moment. Walker barely a footnote.

 

[YTF]

Just saw ESPN's MLB page, and it is an insufferable shrine to Jeter at the moment. Walker barely a footnote.

I sort of get it given the level of hype for Jeter and the idea that Walker might not get the votes in his last year of eligibility. More offensive (if that's the right word) to me was the first commercial aired on MLB Network following the announcement was one of those "Buy this limited edition Derek Jeter HOF (fill in the blank) commemorating yada, yada, yada....."That in itself is to be expected I guess, BUT it was actually MLB hawking the stuff. This stuff is being sold by MLB.

 

[Marciano490]

I sort of get it given the level of hype for Jeter and the idea that Walker might not get the votes in his last year of eligibility. More offensive (if that's the right word) to me was the first commercial aired on MLB Network following the announcement was one of those "Buy this limited edition Derek Jeter HOF (fill in the blank) commemorating yada, yada, yada....."That in itself is to be expected I guess, BUT it was actually MLB hawking the stuff. This stuff is being sold by MLB.

What were they selling, Anbesol?

 

[OurF'ingCity]

I sort of get it given the level of hype for Jeter and the idea that Walker might not get the votes in his last year of eligibility. More offensive (if that's the right word) to me was the first commercial aired on MLB Network following the announcement was one of those "Buy this limited edition Derek Jeter HOF (fill in the blank) commemorating yada, yada, yada....."That in itself is to be expected I guess, BUT it was actually MLB hawking the stuff. This stuff is being sold by MLB.

I kind of get it too, but this piece by Ian O'Connor made me want to vomit. Some of the most spew-inducing quotes:

Why baseball needs Derek Jeter today as much as ever

[A]fter the Astros and Hinch were steamrolled last week in a cheating scandal that will forever tarnish everything they accomplished, it was fitting that baseball could almost immediately turn to Jeter, patron saint of the play-the-game-the-right-way athlete, like it turned to him during the steroid era. When the sport desperately needed something to persuade customers to quit paying so much attention to all this unseemly business over there, No. 2 was always the commissioner's No. 1 option over here.

Maybe you had to be there every day to understand it. Maybe it has to be our little secret in the New York market. But Jeter was every bit the titan he was made out to be, and a Yankee worthy of the blessing granted by his fellow shortstop, Phil Rizzuto, who wasn't afraid to summon the name of his teammate, Joe DiMaggio. "Derek is very comparable to DiMag in that they both have that sixth sense," Rizzuto once said. "They both play the game so naturally and beautifully. ... Joe never made a mistake, and Jeter doesn't either."

Jeter never feared the fallout of failure, which allowed him to thrive on the sport's biggest and brightest stage. He said the Yankee Stadium lights made him feel like he was performing on Broadway, though on game nights he didn't act the part of an entitled leading man. Jeter stunned team trainers with his willingness to play through painful injuries, and he ran out every ground ball with the same purpose and intensity he used to try to track down opposing fast breakers in AAU ball, compelling one of his Kalamazoo Blues coaches to call a hustling Derek the most dunked-on youth player in the state of Michigan.

"I can't comment about Derek Jeter today, because I don't know that person today," Long, who spent six years in the Yankees system and who coached at Rochester Institute of Technology, said last week by phone. "But as a player, people who doubted him just don't get it. If some think he's overrated, that's ludicrous. I think he might be the most underrated player of all time.

That last one in particular is a doozy.

 

[BoSox Rule]

Just saw ESPN's MLB page, and it is an insufferable shrine to Jeter at the moment. Walker barely a footnote.

Pretty funny but not surprising. They have like exactly the same bWAR, Jeter has around 5 more fWAR. But he was obviously present more, like 800 or 900 more games it took him to be slightly more valuable.

 

[jon abbey]

That last one in particular is a doozy.

I am not a big Jeter fan, there have been countless Yankees over the years I've liked more, but I do think it's true that he is somehow both simultaneously wildly overrated (from the 'it's a crime he wasn't unanimous' and 'how bad could his defense have been if he won five Gold Gloves' brigade currently) and pretty underrated (the chart below is insane, he had the 20th highest oWAR of all time, a really impressive list).

But in general, yes, same as with his last few seasons of playing, the sooner he goes away again, the better.

 

[E5 Yaz]

mlb.com story today threw out the usual names for who "could" be the next unanimous selection.

of those already retired, the only 2 that should be seriously considered were Beltre and Ichiro.

After that, it's the expected name players -- Trout, Pujols, Cabrera -- who are still active.

 

[NYCSox]

I kind of get it too, but this piece by Ian O'Connor made me want to vomit. Some of the most spew-inducing quotes:

That last one in particular is a doozy.

O’Connor is a NY mediot. They all swallowed the kool aid a long time ago. What’s worse is the ones who are not local who also parrot this garbage.

 

[Average Reds]

"Maybe it has to be our little secret in the New York market."

I mean, that is some comedy gold right there ...

It has long been the board consensus that Jeter has been overrated (for basically his entire career) and underrated (especially at the end.) JA has it right.

 

[SirPsychoSquints]

I am not a big Jeter fan, there have been countless Yankees over the years I've liked more, but I do think it's true that he is somehow both simultaneously wildly overrated (from the 'it's a crime he wasn't unanimous' and 'how bad could his defense have been if he won five Gold Gloves' brigade currently) and pretty underrated (the chart below is insane, he had the 20th highest oWAR of all time, a really impressive list).

But in general, yes, same as with his last few seasons of playing, the sooner he goes away again, the better.

Note, oWAR includes value for defensive position but NOT defensive value. If he hit exactly the same but played an average RF instead of abysmal SS, he'd have similar WAR to his current rating and about 240 fewer runs of positional value, which would knock his oWAR down to around 72, around 52nd place (still really good! matching Willie McCovey! Ahead of Beltre, behind Winfield).

Edit: Or you can look at Rbat (which is above average) and add the difference between WAR & WAA, and you get something like 68 wins at the plate ranking around 82nd, within a couple wins in either direction of John Olerud, Larry Walker, Will Clark, Mike Trout, Tim Raines, Jack Clark, Mike Piazza, Harold Baines, Adrian Beltre.

 

[santadevil]

Per ESPN, voter that didn't vote for Jeter has kept the ballot private

I'm not surprised, nor am I saddened

 

[InstaFace]

The HOF's post-results ballot release happened today, and the tracker has them. 84% of total ballots are now known (and the Jeter-dropper is not among them, FYI).

Of interest to me are the final numbers for "Votes per public ballot" (both pre- and post-results) over the tracked years:

2013: 6.57 (38% of ballots known)
2014: 8.72 (53%)
2015: 8.73 (60%)
2016: 8.23 (71%)
2017: 8.43 (71%)
2018: 8.74 (75%)
2019: 8.25 (84%)
2020: 6.80 (84%)

That's a huge dropoff, albeit not unprecedented (see 2013). That right there is the data telling you "the logjam is cleared". It's also telling you that there's great and rising obstinacy over the standards, and that voters are raising those standards.

I wonder somewhat if the Hall will start to try and shift things around the edges to ensure they have a few inductees each year, because rising standards help nobody - not the Hall itself, not the game and its publicity, just the old-timers who want to pull up the ladder after them and feel superior. That shifting could look like:

- Tighter eligibility standards on how recently or thoroughly you covered the game, calculated to push off the voter rolls a disproportionate number of remaining old cranks
- More-liberal eligibility standards on what orgs get accredited to have their writers become voters, particularly top bloggers and the like, who are more likely to be younger and more engaged in the process
- Clarification of election standards, particularly to suggest that (e.g.) performance on the field and representation of the game off of it during playing days are the main criteria, and/or that PED use in the PED era is not a mortal sin when it comes to telling baseball's story, just like other forms of cheating were not in prior eras. There's a bright line for the Commissioner's Ineligible List and that's it.
- Even considering lifting the 10-vote limit, although that does not appear to have really prevented anyone in particular from getting in (e.g., Schilling only would have picked up 1-2 more votes this year without it), though some might have gotten in earlier

 

[stepson_and_toe]

I wonder somewhat if the Hall will start to try and shift things around the edges to ensure they have a few inductees each year, because rising standards help nobody

The Hall of Fame had run off elections in 1949, 1964, and 1967:

1946: Run-off ballot where top 20 vote-getters comprise a second and final ballot, if no one elected. -- Charlie Gehringer
1960-68: Run-off ballot where top 30 vote getters comprise second and final ballot, if no one elected . -- Luke Appling, then Red Ruffing --They could go back to that.

 

[InstaFace]

That's a very good idea, and frankly may be necessary next year. I think Clemens and Bonds are dead in the water, and while Schilling made it to 70%, I give him like a 30% shot of making it to 75% given his headwinds. Vizquel (52.6%) is nowhere close. Nobody else is north of 35% and the best the newcomers can hope for is Tim Hudson and Buehrle holding on to make a second ballot.

 

[jon abbey]

That's a very good idea, and frankly may be necessary next year. I think Clemens and Bonds are dead in the water, and while Schilling made it to 70%, I give him like a 30% shot of making it to 75% given his headwinds. Vizquel (52.6%) is nowhere close. Nobody else is north of 35% and the best the newcomers can hope for is Tim Hudson and Buehrle holding on to make a second ballot.

This is actually my guess at why Joe Pos is doing his top 100 MLB players of alltime countdown now, his actual agenda there. He will end with Clemens at #2 and Bonds at #1 in an attempt to point out just why it is so ridiculous that they have still not been elected.

 

[E5 Yaz]

How long will it take someone on the Interwebs to name those voters whose votes are still private, thus beginning the guessing game of "who didn't vote for Jeter?"

 

[BaseballJones]

This is actually my guess at why Joe Pos is doing his top 100 MLB players of alltime countdown now, his actual agenda there. He will end with Clemens at #2 and Bonds at #1 in an attempt to point out just why it is so ridiculous that they have still not been elected.

There's a legit argument to be made that Barry Bonds is the greatest player in baseball history.

 

[SirPsychoSquints]

There's a legit argument to be made that Barry Bonds is the greatest player in baseball history.

The argument is basically that his JAWS of 117.8 is higher than anyone other than Ruth (123.4) or Walter Johnson (126.6), with era adjustments/competition overcoming those deficits plus the fact that he might have accumulated another 10 WAR/ 5 JAWS if he had kept playing, as opposed to Ruth & Johnson who appeared to have been done in their last seasons.

I agree with this argument.

 

[santadevil]

I just came across this article when reading about how he is going to be the EBUG for the Colorado Avalanche

I didn't realize that he'd been cut from the Regina Pats (WHL) twice, which kind of pushed him more towards ball

View: https://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/mlb/larry-walkers-rise-hall-famer-testament-hard-work-patience/