2022 Hall of Fame Class

Sad Sam Jones

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2017
2,693
It feels to me that prior to the PED era, things like corked bats and doctoring the ball were always seen as misdemeanors compared to something more serious like gambling on/throwing a game. They’re still not even sure a corked bat provides any real advantage.
That's a strange place to set the bar. Everything was a misdemeanor compared to gambling on/throwing a game. Well over 90% of players placed on the permanently ineligible list were due to either gambling or contract jumping, and most contract jumpers were later reinstated.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
33,444
I don’t even think corked bats make a difference. Is there any science to back up that it does. I thought I had read that it didn’t but we’re talking over 15 years ago that I would have read that.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,562
Maine
I don’t even think corked bats make a difference. Is there any science to back up that it does. I thought I had read that it didn’t but we’re talking over 15 years ago that I would have read that.
I think in the context of the discussion, citing the corked bat incident with Sosa isn't so much about whether it actually makes a difference as it is about his willingness to bend/break the rules for an advantage. That he used a corked bat at all is suggestive that he was looking for any edge he could get, real or perceived, which makes his suspected PED use more plausible in some people's minds.
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,950
We also have proof David Ortiz was a significantly better baseball player than Sammy Sosa. Over nearly identical number of plate appearances, Papi had a 141 OPS+ to Sosa's 128. Sosa was a better baserunner and defender (maybe) early in his career, but by the time he was a good hitter, he was terrible on the bases and in the field. He went from a 30/30 guy in 1995 to 64/0 guy in 2001. Papi was also statistically twice as clutch, with 50 WPA in his career to Sosa's 25. That's all not even mentioning the postseason or consistency. I don't see how the two are comparable.
Sosa was a good defender and baserunner early in his career, while of course Ortiz was a DH who couldn't run and contributed nothing defensively. That makes a big difference, because Sosa was able to play a position with a significantly lower replacement level (right fielders tend to hit a lot worse than DHs). By B-Refs's numbers, Sosa has an edge of 120 runs in added value due solely to the positional difference, and another 25 runs due to baserunning. As a result, bWAR has them almost equal (Sosa ultimately has a slight edge) despite Ortiz being a significantly better hitter.
 

Hoya81

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2010
8,579
No corked bat user has been elected to the Hall of Fame.

Ask Pete Rose about this at his next signing.
To be fair, it's a pretty small sample size (6 violations since 1970, none since Sosa in 2003).
On the doctoring side, Perry was suspended in '82 for doctoring the ball and still made it into the HOF. And several HOF pitchers have admitted to either greasing up the ball or scuffing it (Drysdale and Ford off the top of my head).
 

VTSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
298
I don’t even think corked bats make a difference. Is there any science to back up that it does. I thought I had read that it didn’t but we’re talking over 15 years ago that I would have read that.
It was years ago, but I think I saw some analysis on corked bats somewhere (MythBusters maybe?). I think the results were that it didn't affect power, but made the bat lighter and faster to get around, so the real benefit was for people chasing 3000 hits late in their careers.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
23,374
Are you referring to Sosa's use of a skin lightener? That's not quite the same as a white guy putting on black face, which might make a voter question one's character.
This is separate from the skin thing, but Sosa's post playing career hasn't done him any favors. He isn't popular with sportswriters, he doesn't come back to Chicago, I think he lives in Dubai now. There was an SI article that came out a number of years ago where he comes across really poorly, just a rich guy that doesn't care about the fans.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,863
Imaginationland
One of the odd quirks of Sosa's career is that he hit 60+ HRs in a season 3x (the 3rd, 5th and 6th highest totals in a single season) but didn't win the HR title any of those years. For all the reasons noted above, the steroid smoke around Sosa is far greater than Ortiz.
 

Daniel_Son

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2021
1,851
San Diego
I don’t even think corked bats make a difference. Is there any science to back up that it does. I thought I had read that it didn’t but we’re talking over 15 years ago that I would have read that.
This study from 2011 says no, but actually sort of?

A batter indeed can swing a lighter bat faster, but a lighter bat has less inertia. So there’s a trade-off, says Lloyd Smith, an associate professor of engineering at Washington State University and a co-author on the paper. By once again firing a ball at a bat at WSU’s Sports Science Laboratory, the researchers found that a heavier bat still hit the ball harder (and therefore farther) than a lighter, corked bat. “Corking will not help you hit the ball farther,” says Smith.

“That’s not to say that baseball players are dumb,” Smith is quick to add. Players may have another reason to cork their bats: to make the bats lighter so players can, in baseball argot, “get around on a pitch” quicker, allowing them to wait a split second longer before swinging, which gives them more time to judge a ball’s path and to make adjustments during the swing. “So, while corking may not allow a batter to hit the ball farther, it may well allow a batter to hit the ball solidly more often,” the researchers write.


Even though Sosa did use a corked bat, I still don't think that alone is grounds for barring him from the HoF, especially given Hoya's point above that Drysdale, Ford, and others were known to doctor the ball. I think it's important to make a distinction on the type of cheating - throwing games for money is worse than corking a bat or spitting on a baseball. It's going to be an interesting discussion if any 2017 Astros have HoF-worthy careers - or 2017+18 Red Sox, Spider Tack pitchers, etc. The game has a long history of bending the rules - where do the voters draw the line?

This is separate from the skin thing, but Sosa's post playing career hasn't done him any favors. He isn't popular with sportswriters, he doesn't come back to Chicago, I think he lives in Dubai now. There was an SI article that came out a number of years ago where he comes across really poorly, just a rich guy that doesn't care about the fans.
I suspect - unfairly or not - this plays a pretty big role in why Ortiz is a serious first-ballot contender and Sosa is barely hanging on.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,983
I suspect - unfairly or not - this plays a pretty big role in why Ortiz is a serious first-ballot contender and Sosa is barely hanging on.
I mean there aren't a lot obvious of slam dunk candidates. For the ones that get a little bit of pushback, there needs to be some work if you want to be a Hall of Famer. I know that sounds dumb but I think that it's true. Sosa is on the line for a number of reasons, and if he really wanted to be in Cooperstown, he'd have to go on a bit of a PR blitz from when he was first on the ballot. Remind people what a good player he was, remind people why most gravitated towards him during the home run race, throw out a few pitches at Wrigley, get someone to write (or film) a soft-focus piece on you, go on MLB Network or FOX or ESPN or the Cubs' station and talk about the game. Because if this is important to you and you don't control the narrative, someone else will.

ARod has softened his image a bit. Ortiz is like an ambassador to baseball. I think that being in Cooperstown is important to those guys. I get the feeling that the HoF doesn't mean much to Manny, Sosa, Gary Sheffield and others.
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
5,052
NH
It kind of bothers me that Sosa is even considered by people. At least you can argue that guys like Clemens and Bonds had their HoF careers before steroids. Sosa was Jay Bruce with a worse obp before steroids. 63rd in MVP shares even with the steroids. 29 WAR outside of his 5 year peak, less than 60 WAR even with it.

He'd be a ridiculous hall of famer.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
10,435
It kind of bothers me that Sosa is even considered by people. At least you can argue that guys like Clemens and Bonds had their HoF careers before steroids. Sosa was Jay Bruce with a worse obp before steroids. 63rd in MVP shares even with the steroids. 29 WAR outside of his 5 year peak, less than 60 WAR even with it.

He'd be a ridiculous hall of famer.
So about 20 WAR ahead of Harold Baines! :rolleyes:
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
47,106
View: https://twitter.com/sarsdell/status/1473640754048348162?s=21
Time for my first set of 2022 Hall of Fame projections, based on 52 ballots in @NotMrTibbs's Tracker. Sample sizes are still very small (note the massive 95% confidence intervals). But early returns suggest that David Ortiz has a real chance to be elected this year.
I would love for Ortiz to get in on the first ballot. Would also hopefully mean that change is finally happening with HOF voters that look at more than just traditional stats.
 

epraz

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2002
6,260
Love to see it, but I wonder how that "model" works for a newcomer like Ortiz, in terms of how the HOF voters (especially the non-public ones) will view him. Seems like you'd have to make some significant subjective judgments about the 2003 testing and how voters treat DHs. Which, for Ortiz, is kind of the whole question.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
16,159
He didn't vote for either. He voted for Bonds because he had a OF career before steroids, but he didn't vote for Clemens. I guess his argument is Ortiz didn't have a HOF career from 2004-2016. Or Clemens from 1986-2000 or so.

My counter-argument is that Heyman is an idiot.
 

Mueller's Twin Grannies

critical thinker
SoSH Member
Dec 19, 2009
9,447
Morons like Heyman who propagate the notion that Ortiz FAILED a test should be banned from voting for cause. How can you call yourself a journalist and not bother to do your research, or, worse, so the research and still come to that conclusion so definitively?

Manfred has gone out of his way to say without saying that Ortiz did not fail the test and was just one of the ones who agreed to be tested. I find it interesting that he didn't mention Sheffield. I wonder why...? Couldn't be because he was a Yankee, right?
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
76,382
No Bonds or Clemens would be depressing as f. But hey they at least have Harold Baines enshrined.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
16,159
This entire process needs to be revamped. This is a travesty.
It has turned into a bunch of crabby men trying to prove how smart or moral they are by making up their own criteria for HOF-worthiness, and in the process essentially eliminating everyone. You played the wrong position, your politics suck, you were obnoxious to reporters and probably a crappy teammate, you definitely used but I am giving you credit for some of your years, I think you probably used and I am giving you credit for no years, I only look at WAR, I never look at WAR, in retrospect I guess you had a really good career but at the time I didn't really notice so you don't feel like a HOFer to me, etc. etc. etc. Meanwhile we have everyone from Jesse Haines to Harold Baines in the HOF and we have Tony Oliva , an excellent but not otherworldly player for exactly eight years (and one of my favorites when I was a kid). going in this year.

I would start by lowering the bar to 65% and as long as you get 40% you stay on the ballot.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
8,227
Boston, MA
This entire process needs to be revamped. This is a travesty.
That's why it only takes 75% of the vote to get in. In any group of 500 voters you're going to have a handful of dummies, but they're not enough to derail the process. I don't see that the writers have had many outrageous selections or non-selections in recent decades. It's the second chance committees that have been the real head scratchers.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,173
Anyone who sends in a blank ballot like this clown should have their HOF voting rights taken Away.
There is no reasoning good enough to explain why you submitted a blank ballot two years in a row after only for Jeter.
Of course there is. If you won't vote for "Steroid Guys" there are no other viable candidates.

Ortiz will likely end up in the low 70s but that's a good sign in getting in eventually.
 
Last edited:

Mueller's Twin Grannies

critical thinker
SoSH Member
Dec 19, 2009
9,447
I want him to get in, but if Ortiz isn't getting in this year, I can live with nobody else getting in either. Him being the one and only would be tremendous theater.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
25,961
Miami (oh, Miami!)
It has turned into a bunch of crabby men trying to prove how smart or moral they are by making up their own criteria for HOF-worthiness, and in the process essentially eliminating everyone. You played the wrong position, your politics suck, you were obnoxious to reporters and probably a crappy teammate, you definitely used but I am giving you credit for some of your years, I think you probably used and I am giving you credit for no years, I only look at WAR, I never look at WAR, in retrospect I guess you had a really good career but at the time I didn't really notice so you don't feel like a HOFer to me, etc. etc. etc. Meanwhile we have everyone from Jesse Haines to Harold Baines in the HOF and we have Tony Oliva , an excellent but not otherworldly player for exactly eight years (and one of my favorites when I was a kid). going in this year.

I would start by lowering the bar to 65% and as long as you get 40% you stay on the ballot.
Hmm, there's a character clause and you supported a coup.

Hmm, there's a sportsmanship clause and you did more illegal PEDs than several then-soviet-bloc countries combined.

Hmm, you're Anthony John Pierzynski, so, like how could anyone vote for you.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
16,159
Hmm, there's a character clause and you supported a coup.

Hmm, there's a sportsmanship clause and you did more illegal PEDs than several then-soviet-bloc countries combined.

Hmm, you're Anthony John Pierzynski, so, like how could anyone vote for you.
Right. There are a lot of reasons to deny people your vote, and different writers have different reasons to deny this one or that one, and eventually you get to a point where you have this year’s ballot. Which is full of players better than Harold Baines. By full if I mean maybe fifteen players. And yet plenty of writers send in a blank ballot. And some guys will vote for this guy but not that guy for the reasons you mentioned. And maybe maybe one guy will get in. I mean if you don’t want any PEDs in there why not vote Rolen, Wagner, Hunter and Jones in? All better than Baines.

At some point it’s not the lack of good players, it is the system.

Edit - someone who is a no-peds voter should analyze how the presumably non enhanced candidates would look if all the steroid users had not been around contemporaneously. All the numbers would change.
 
Last edited:

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
8,227
Boston, MA
If you feel Harold Baines was a mistake, then you'd choose not to compound it by using him as the new baseline Hall of Famer.