2024 HOF Ballot

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
8,250
Boston, MA
said it before but thinking Mauer wasn't going to get in is just silly. He was the first overall, stayed with a team his whole career, and no one questioned that he was the best catcher in the league from like his 2nd year. I don't even get what the case against him was, that he played games at first?

Meanwhile people want to argue that Yadier Molina, a guy who was basically Omar Vizquel but with the Cardinals, should get in.
The case against him is that he caught fewer games than Buster Posey, who retired young and missed a bunch of time to injury. The last 5 years of Mauer's career he was basically Doug Mientkiewicz. He's certainly not the worst selection, but I was surprised to see that level of support.
 

CarolinaBeerGuy

Don't know him from Adam
SoSH Member
Mar 14, 2006
10,546
Kernersville, NC
You’re making this more complicated than it has to be. He batted below 290, as a 1B, on the road.

Also I don’t spend all of my time in the same forum. But thanks for the personal attack.
Batting average is such a strange thing to go by at this point. Is Harmon Killebrew a Hall of Famer for you? Sure, he hit a lot more homers and had a higher career OPS+ than Helton, but the rest of the counting stats point to Helton being the better overall player.

https://stathead.com/baseball/versus-finder.cgi?request=1&player_id1=killeb001har&player_id2=helton001tod
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,457
Just for fun, Todd Helton had a 121 wrc+ on the road in his career ( 136 wrc+ at home), that's pretty damn good for a guy who couldn't hit on the road
 

67YAZ

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2000
9,272
Meanwhile people want to argue that Yadier Molina, a guy who was basically Omar Vizquel but with the Cardinals, should get in.
Molina also sexually harassed a batboy with autism? And has a history of assaulting his wife?

I don’t know how a voter who has read the character clause can vote for Vizquel. He’s a very horrible person.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
10,440
The case against him is that he caught fewer games than Buster Posey, who retired young and missed a bunch of time to injury. The last 5 years of Mauer's career he was basically Doug Mientkiewicz. He's certainly not the worst selection, but I was surprised to see that level of support.
You definitely have to make allowances for catchers. Like Mauer, Johnny Bench only made it to 35. Gary Carter was a pretty bad player after he turned 33, although he hung around for a while. Ted Simmons was about the same. Irod's hitting declined a lot after hitting 33. There really aren't too many Fisks who are effective into their late 30s, and most of those that continued to play past 35 or so, like Fisk and Berra, played a lot of outfield or first base too. Posey was out of baseball at age 34, so presumably he gets the same treatment.

Mauer and Posey also fall a bit into the Koufax/Kiner category - players who didn't have 20 year careers but who were so good for a period of time that they deserve special recognition. MVPs, batting championships, post season glory. (Personally, I'm hoping Pedroia ends up in this category.)

I think a lot of people would be surprised to go back and look at how mediocre the second halves of the careers of a lot of Hall of Famers have been. Many Hall of Famers do the things that get them noticed for Cooperstown contention in their 20s and then they hang around in their 30s putting up fairly uninspiring numbers, but which allow them to get to counting stats that cinch their candidacy. In Cal Ripken's last ten years, he had an OPS+ above 100 only three times. Mauer might have been Mientkiewicz for a while, but he's not the first HOF player to do that.

On a separate topic, I'm too lazy to quote the various posts arguing with @Ale Xander about Todd Helton, but I just want let all of you know, you're arguing with a guy who repeatedly stated that Derek Jeter did not belong in the Hall of Fame back in 2021.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
47,158
You definitely have to make allowances for catchers. Like Mauer, Johnny Bench only made it to 35. Gary Carter was a pretty bad player after he turned 33, although he hung around for a while. Ted Simmons was about the same. Irod's hitting declined a lot after hitting 33. There really aren't too many Fisks who are effective into their late 30s, and most of those that continued to play past 35 or so, like Fisk and Berra, played a lot of outfield or first base too. Posey was out of baseball at age 34, so presumably he gets the same treatment.

Mauer and Posey also fall a bit into the Koufax/Kiner category - players who didn't have 20 year careers but who were so good for a period of time that they deserve special recognition. MVPs, batting championships, post season glory. (Personally, I'm hoping Pedroia ends up in this category.)

I think a lot of people would be surprised to go back and look at how mediocre the second halves of the careers of a lot of Hall of Famers have been. Many Hall of Famers do the things that get them noticed for Cooperstown contention in their 20s and then they hang around in their 30s putting up fairly uninspiring numbers, but which allow them to get to counting stats that cinch their candidacy. In Cal Ripken's last ten years, he had an OPS+ above 100 only three times. Mauer might have been Mientkiewicz for a while, but he's not the first HOF player to do that.

On a separate topic, I'm too lazy to quote the various posts arguing with @Ale Xander about Todd Helton, but I just want let all of you know, you're arguing with a guy who repeatedly stated that Derek Jeter did not belong in the Hall of Fame back in 2021.
Iirc catchers end up having major hip issues (and usually end up getting hip surgery) after they retire.
All of that squatting throughout their careers (little league thru the bigs) screws up their hips pretty badly
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
38,901
Hingham, MA
The overall point is silly here given how 2009 ALDS Game 2 went in isolation, let alone at large and how relative values of an individual player work in this game, let alone in small sample sizes. But by the same criteria as the 12/14 prior list...

Yes. Simply because the vast majority of the list came pre-divisionally, limiting possible game count.
Thanks!
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
5,066
NH
Molina also sexually harassed a batboy with autism? And has a history of assaulting his wife?

I don’t know how a voter who has read the character clause can vote for Vizquel. He’s a very horrible person.
I don't think either of these guys is even close if you look at the just the on field stuff. Yea Vizquel is an asshole, but he's also not a hall of fame player.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 22, 2008
36,553
How do we feel about Billy Wagner missing the cut?

If he hung on 3-4 more years and pitched 200 replacement-level innings, Wagner’s career would look like Trevor Hoffman’s, minus the eye-popping save total. I’d say Wagner is the second best modern (post-1990*) reliever. On the other hand, I could be persuaded that none of those guys belong besides Rivera (and Eck and Smoltz too, but neither of those guys is close without their accomplishments as starters).


*- Obviously an arbitrary cut-off. I’m just acknowledging that the game changed, such that guys like Fingers/Gossage/Sutter are in a different discussion than Rivera/Eck/Wagner/Hoffman.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,608
Maine
How do we feel about Billy Wagner missing the cut?

If he hung on 3-4 more years and pitched 200 replacement-level innings, Wagner’s career would look like Trevor Hoffman’s, minus the eye-popping save total. I’d say Wagner is the second best modern (post-1990*) reliever. On the other hand, I could be persuaded that none of those guys belong besides Rivera (and Eck and Smoltz too, but neither of those guys is close without their accomplishments as starters).


*- Obviously an arbitrary cut-off. I’m just acknowledging that the game changed, such that guys like Fingers/Gossage/Sutter are in a different discussion than Rivera/Eck/Wagner/Hoffman.
I think he got close enough (five votes shy) that, based on history, he should get over the hump next year. I don't think the incoming class is quite good enough to cost him votes. Ichiro is a lock. CC and Pedroia are the next best and they might not quite get enough support to get in in their first year. That should allow Wagner to get in.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
13,412
Wagner seems fine, basically Papelbon with a longer career and no post-season success. If Wagner gets in, what about Kimbrel, K-Rod, Jansen down the line?
 

Eric1984

my real name is Ben
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2001
3,159
No, Ty Cobb was a decent dude who got smeared by a grade A jackass and apparently some people still get mislead.
He did get smeared by a Grade A jackass. But he wasn't an altogether great dude either. He was a complicated guy. We all are.
 

Eric1984

my real name is Ben
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2001
3,159
Ted Williams won infinitely more playoff games than Joe Mauer

Mike Trout is an obvious hall of famer.

Joe Mauer was a good, maybe very good, player who has zero memorable moments in baseball history.

Edit and honestly it’s LOL on you guys for comparing Joe Mauer to Ted Williams and Mike Traut. Like, are you fucking serious?
The postseason W-L record for his teams doesn't really feel like a reflection on Mauer himself. but I do agree with your assessment here. I'm sure I watched several dozen games over the years that Joe Mauer played in, and I'm sure I was conscious of what he was doing in the moment, but I can't come up with a single memory of something he did. Still -- 3 batting titles while catching is something unique.
 

Eric1984

my real name is Ben
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2001
3,159
I was comparing the post season failures of two players that are HOFers. I don't really care one way or the other if he gets in. Using wins as a barometer to see whether a catcher makes the HOF is not a metric I would use.
Tell that to a Yankee fan arguing that Berra is the GOAT and not Bench (though it's not a TERRIBLE argument) or that Dumbo and Munson should have been no-doubt about it first ballot HOFers.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
23,320
Pittsburgh, PA
He did get smeared by a Grade A jackass. But he wasn't an altogether great dude either. He was a complicated guy. We all are.
Right but Cobb is cited as a canonical example of a total raging asshole who's in the Hall of Fame, when his rep is like 80% due to Al Stump (the ghostwriter of his autobiography, who made up most of the lies and whom he couldn't stop from publishing before he died in 1961), 5% each to Ken Burns' Baseball documentary, Field of Dreams' offhand joke, and the 1994 Tommy Lee Jones movie "Cobb" for each echoing some of the lies, and 5% for "Cobb, like many men of his era, liked to get in fights and got into them regularly, without regard for any particular bigotry". There's not really an argument that he was more of a bad dude than average men of his era, and in fact a lot to suggest that he was a pretty great dude overall.

Read this, it's as simple as one NY Post article, which summarizes the exhaustively-researched biography by Charles Leerhsen:
https://nypost.com/2015/05/31/how-ty-cobb-was-framed-as-a-racist/

(1) There's not only no evidence Cobb was a racist, there's in fact a lot of evidence that he had very progressive ideas on race for men of his era and regarded them more or less as equals, or at least that race didn't put him above them. He enthusiastically supported integration of the big leagues and praised black ballplayers. One of several blacks employed by Cobb, Alex Rivers, named his son after the ballplayer and said, “I love the man.” His father, something of a public intellectual, once put a stop to the planning of a lynching and was "an outspoken advocate for the public education of black Americans."

(2) A catcher on the Tigers in 1907 was in a badmouthing campaign to get Cobb traded, so he made up various stories about Cobb (e.g. that he assaulted a black groundskeeper and his wife), and also "had a habit of beating up Cobb"

(3) He went well out of his way to be kind to the powerless, including sheltering a 16yo ballboy, in an era when ballboys were badly mistreated, even to the point of letting him share Cobb's room in (segregated) hotels. It's quite a story, halfway through the article... parable-grade Good Samaritan-ing. He would write multi-page letters in response to fan mail.

(4) In 1909, Cobb got into a fight with the (white) security guard at a hotel, which involved Cobb getting him across the wrist with a pen knife. Cobb later pled guilty to assault and paid a fine and settlement. Charles Alexander's 1984 biography invented that the guard was black, when Leerhsen's research proved he wasn't, and no contemporary accounts had said otherwise. Sometimes this story is distorted into "stabbing a black waiter for 'being uppity'." Cobb did once climb into the stands to argue with a black fan, and another time beat up a (white) heckler; fights between players and fans were common in that day, the article cites many examples.

(5) After retirement he became a significant philanthropist. He funded a hospital, started a college-education fund for kids, and funded the latter with a quarter of his estate at his death.

(6) His general hotheadedness did cost him, in divorces and friends - something he regretted at the end of his life. He was unpopular with a lot of his teammates in his early career, including Sam Crawford who was initially a mentor to him. He was estranged from one of his sons, who had flunked out of both Princeton and Yale for alcoholism. But he had 150 people show up to his funeral, including his first wife of 39 years, and was friends with a number of his ballplayer contemporaries.

I don't think he was a saint, but he was about as close to it as star ballplayers from that era might have come. He deserves better than to have the posters here use him as some sort of epitome of character flaws.
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,619
Pedroia’s best comp for these purposes is probably David Wright, no? Both played for a similar amount of time, both were felled by injury, similar counting stats (Pedroia out WARs him, but not by much). Pedroia has an MVP, but Wright probably should’ve won one. 2B is arguably the weaker position, but 3B is historically underrepresented in the Hall. Anyway, Wright got 6% and makes a second ballot.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
26,071
Unreal America
You definitely have to make allowances for catchers. Like Mauer, Johnny Bench only made it to 35. Gary Carter was a pretty bad player after he turned 33, although he hung around for a while. Ted Simmons was about the same. Irod's hitting declined a lot after hitting 33. There really aren't too many Fisks who are effective into their late 30s, and most of those that continued to play past 35 or so, like Fisk and Berra, played a lot of outfield or first base too. Posey was out of baseball at age 34, so presumably he gets the same treatment.

Mauer and Posey also fall a bit into the Koufax/Kiner category - players who didn't have 20 year careers but who were so good for a period of time that they deserve special recognition. MVPs, batting championships, post season glory. (Personally, I'm hoping Pedroia ends up in this category.)

I think a lot of people would be surprised to go back and look at how mediocre the second halves of the careers of a lot of Hall of Famers have been. Many Hall of Famers do the things that get them noticed for Cooperstown contention in their 20s and then they hang around in their 30s putting up fairly uninspiring numbers, but which allow them to get to counting stats that cinch their candidacy. In Cal Ripken's last ten years, he had an OPS+ above 100 only three times. Mauer might have been Mientkiewicz for a while, but he's not the first HOF player to do that.

On a separate topic, I'm too lazy to quote the various posts arguing with @Ale Xander about Todd Helton, but I just want let all of you know, you're arguing with a guy who repeatedly stated that Derek Jeter did not belong in the Hall of Fame back in 2021.
I agree wholeheartedly with your post.

Personally, I’d rather induct guys who had a blazing ~10 year career and then retired/fell off a cliff than guys who played, say, 18 years but were largely compilers (I’m looking at you Harold Baines).

That’s why I was always in favor of Rice getting in. His 1975-1986 was phenomenal. Who cares if he didn’t tack on another 5 seasons of utter mediocrity to surpass a few arbitrary counting milestones?

And for catchers you gotta drop that threshold down to like 7-8 seasons give how the position is so debilitating.
 

azsoxpatsfan

Does not enjoy the go
SoSH Member
May 23, 2014
4,892
I was looking around Beltre’s reference page, and was surprised by how few all star games he made. Turns out, he has the highest career War of anyone with 8 or fewer all star games, and he only made 4.
 

Jason Bae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2021
679
NJ
I don't think either of these guys is even close if you look at the just the on field stuff. Yea Vizquel is an asshole, but he's also not a hall of fame player.
I've always hated the "Omar vs. Ozzie" debate. They sound like similar players until you dig deeper. Ozzie had a 90 wRC+ to Omar's 83. That's a pretty big gap when talking about middle infielders if you ask me... and that's before you consider how offense was at SS over Ozzie's career versus Omar's. Ozzie has -117 rBat while Omar has -244. Then you account for baserunning and Ozzie had 176 more stolen bases... while getting caught 19 fewer times. Not only was Ozzie a far superior base stealer, but he was also much better at taking extra bases (53% to Omar's 42%). Ozzie has +80 baserunning runs while Omar comes out at -1.
 

Dewey's 'stache

New Member
Mar 16, 2023
1,661
Not sure if there is another thread on this topic, if so, please direct me to it. Dwight Evans was my favorite Red Sox player when I was a kid. (Thus my SOSH username) I have heard that by most estimates he should be in, in fact, I watched a show with Costas and that sabermetric guy on MLB network (he hosts “MLB now”) and they both agreed that Evans should be in. Additionally, the link below goes through the case for Dewey. What are your thoughts on this? also, what is holding him back? Is it the voting process for players that are out of the normal voting time frame, or something else?

By the way, the article below is great, but the first half is more of a storyline of his career with specifics about playoff appearances and such (which many Sox fans may already be familiar with) the second half gets into his case for the hall of fame.

https://www.cooperstowncred.com/perennially-underrated-the-hall-of-fame-case-for-dwight-evans/
 

ThePrideofShiner

Crests prematurely
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
10,996
Washington
Speaking of catchers, is the reason Posada had no chance at the Hall because of his offense or defense or both?

I don't have a problem with Mauer getting in because catchers are judged differently, but I'm not sure he should have been first ballot.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
8,250
Boston, MA
Not sure if there is another thread on this topic, if so, please direct me to it. Dwight Evans was my favorite Red Sox player when I was a kid. (Thus my SOSH username) I have heard that by most estimates he should be in, in fact, I watched a show with Costas and that sabermetric guy on MLB network (he hosts “MLB now”) and they both agreed that Evans should be in. Additionally, the link below goes through the case for Dewey. What are your thoughts on this? also, what is holding him back? Is it the voting process for players that are out of the normal voting time frame, or something else?

By the way, the article below is great, but the first half is more of a storyline of his career with specifics about playoff appearances and such (which many Sox fans may already be familiar with) the second half gets into his case for the hall of fame.

https://www.cooperstowncred.com/perennially-underrated-the-hall-of-fame-case-for-dwight-evans/
I think part of the problem with Evans is that his peak came late in his career. His age 29-35 seasons were way better than what he produced in the rest of his 20s. It probably set a narrative about what kind of player he was even as he was having really good seasons. There was an expectation that he was starting hot and would drop off. He also walked a lot in an era where that wasn't highly valued and played good right field defense when right field is where you stuck the guys who couldn't move.

It does raise an interesting question. There were guys like the Evanses, Dwight and Darrell, who put up really good OBPs during the course of their career. We know better now that it was a valuable offensive tool than when they were playing. But does that mean you give them more credit for being better players than someone like Andre Dawson? He didn't walk much, but he was doing what baseball guys wanted him to do back then. The Hall of Fame voters seemingly have decided that playing the game as it was expected is more valuable, as Hawk is in and Dewey and Darrell are out. But I could see going in the other direction, even if that meant you didn't make All Star teams or get MVP votes at the time.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
23,393
Speaking of catchers, is the reason Posada had no chance at the Hall because of his offense or defense or both?

I don't have a problem with Mauer getting in because catchers are judged differently, but I'm not sure he should have been first ballot.
JAWS has Posada 19th, well below the HoF averages for catchers, and the only few guys with a lower JAWS than Posada that are in are guys who played 70+ years ago. He was a very good hitting catcher who's teams won a lot and a so-so defender. He doesn't seem like a particularly strong candidate.

Mauer is 7th all-time in JAWS for catchers, and was one of the best hitters in the league period at his peak, while also being a very good defensive catcher for the first half of his career, and won the MVP. His 7-year peak WAR of 39 is well above the Hall average for catching at 34.7. He was the first catcher to win a batting title in like, 100 years and he did it three times.

Posada has a longer career and his teams won a lot more--but if you put Posada on the 2010s Twins and Mauer on the 90s Yankees, I bet they'd easily swap playoff success.

Not sure if there is another thread on this topic, if so, please direct me to it. Dwight Evans was my favorite Red Sox player when I was a kid. (Thus my SOSH username) I have heard that by most estimates he should be in, in fact, I watched a show with Costas and that sabermetric guy on MLB network (he hosts “MLB now”) and they both agreed that Evans should be in. Additionally, the link below goes through the case for Dewey. What are your thoughts on this? also, what is holding him back? Is it the voting process for players that are out of the normal voting time frame, or something else?

By the way, the article below is great, but the first half is more of a storyline of his career with specifics about playoff appearances and such (which many Sox fans may already be familiar with) the second half gets into his case for the hall of fame.

https://www.cooperstowncred.com/perennially-underrated-the-hall-of-fame-case-for-dwight-evans/
Dewey is a really interesting candidate. He falls slightly below average in terms of JAWS and WAR for Right Fielders, and he imo, is a lot better than a lot of the people that have been put in by the veterans committee. What's interesting about the advanced metrics is that they seem to think his fielding and his 8 gold gloves, are overrated and he wasn't really that good in right field. But they also think that his hitting is particularly underrated, and that brings his career WAR up to 67.2, far higher than guys like Tony Oliva, Gil Hodges, Harold Baines, etc. that have gotten in.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
10,440
Not sure if there is another thread on this topic, if so, please direct me to it. Dwight Evans was my favorite Red Sox player when I was a kid. (Thus my SOSH username) I have heard that by most estimates he should be in, in fact, I watched a show with Costas and that sabermetric guy on MLB network (he hosts “MLB now”) and they both agreed that Evans should be in. Additionally, the link below goes through the case for Dewey. What are your thoughts on this? also, what is holding him back? Is it the voting process for players that are out of the normal voting time frame, or something else?

By the way, the article below is great, but the first half is more of a storyline of his career with specifics about playoff appearances and such (which many Sox fans may already be familiar with) the second half gets into his case for the hall of fame.

https://www.cooperstowncred.com/perennially-underrated-the-hall-of-fame-case-for-dwight-evans/
I wrote this in last year's Hall of Fame thread about Evans -


I think another thing that hurts Evans' candidacy is that he just wasn't a good hitter early in his career. In a team loaded with good hitters like Yaz, Rice, Lynn, Fisk, etc... he just wasn't that good. Even guys like Hobson and Scott in the 1977-79 era looked like better hitters, at least in terms of counting stats. In 1975, Evans had his most plate appearances hitting seventh. In 1977, he had only 20 plate appearances in the top six spots of the order. In 1978, he got more than half his plate appearances out of the eighth spot. It wasn't until his breakout season in 1981 that he finally starting hitting outside of the bottom third of the lineup. How many Hall of Famers hit seventh or eighth in the lineup in the "prime" of their careers? I think he got stuck with the reputation of being a "great fielder but not a great hitter" and it took a long time to change that reputation, especially because the stuff he could do at the plate wasn't highly valued at the time (ie drawing walks). Before 1981, there was a whiff of disappointment about him as a hitter - he was a hot prospect but then a dud at the plate, magnified by the way his sort-of contemporaries like Rice and Lynn burst onto the scene.

He had a weird career. Bill James wrote somewhere that its what you do in your twenties that qualifies you for the Hall of Fame, in that this is the period where most great players have the peak years (MVP awards, leading the league in stats, All Star appearances, etc...) that get you noticed as a superstar, but its what you do in your thirties that gets you into the Hall of Fame (you have to hang around long enough to compiling the counting stats that qualify you for the Hall). Evans was the opposite of this - he didn't do much with the bat until he turned 29 in 1981 (.262/.340/.448 through 1980), but he then went on a nine year run where he hit .281/.387/.498. It is entirely what he did in his thirties (rounding up a bit for his age 29 year) that gets him in the discussion.

Before 1981, he had only one All Star Game appearance, had never led the league in anything, had never received an MVP vote. His high in batting average before that year was .281, his high in home runs was 24, his high in RBIs was 70. These are not the numbers Hall of Famers outfielders normally produce in their 20s. He finally broke out as a hitter in 1981 (which of course was a season cut short by a strike). He then went on to become a great player from that point onwards, with three top-10 MVP finishes, four 100 RBI seasons (and two more of 97 and 98), four 100 runs scored seasons, two seasons leading the league in OPS.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
13,412
In a weird way, I think that the Yankees having so many good players during their dynasty years has probably hurt the HOF chances of individual players- the relative importance of a Posada, Williams, Wells, Pettitte, O’Neill, Cone seems lessened because they had excellent teammates. Each of those guys are better than many players in the HOF (and many will probably get in as veterans committee choices in the future).
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
10,440
In a weird way, I think that the Yankees having so many good players during their dynasty years has probably hurt the HOF chances of individual players- the relative importance of a Posada, Williams, Wells, Pettitte, O’Neill, Cone seems lessened because they had excellent teammates. Each of those guys are better than many players in the HOF (and many will probably get in as veterans committee choices in the future).
That's kind of funny because the Hall is full of players - Earl Combs, Waite Hoyt, Herb Pennock, Red Ruffing - who are in because they had the good sense to play with Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
76,435
That's kind of funny because the Hall is full of players - Earl Combs, Waite Hoyt, Herb Pennock, Red Ruffing - who are in because they had the good sense to play with Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig.
Catfish Hunter and Tony Perez perhaps have a similar issue?

But yeah Waite Hoyt is candidate #1 and HP probably #2.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
38,901
Hingham, MA
In a weird way, I think that the Yankees having so many good players during their dynasty years has probably hurt the HOF chances of individual players- the relative importance of a Posada, Williams, Wells, Pettitte, O’Neill, Cone seems lessened because they had excellent teammates. Each of those guys are better than many players in the HOF (and many will probably get in as veterans committee choices in the future).
Very similar to the dynasty Patriots.
 

trekfan55

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 29, 2004
11,751
Panama
Speaking of catchers, is the reason Posada had no chance at the Hall because of his offense or defense or both?

I don't have a problem with Mauer getting in because catchers are judged differently, but I'm not sure he should have been first ballot.
I don't know about the whole first ballot thing. When the name is on the ballot writers should vote on whether the player belongs in the Hall or not. The only reason a plyaer should be excluded (if the voter thinks he should make it) is that he thinks 10 other players in the ballot should go in instead of him. They can vote up to 10, they should vote up to 10.

That being said, I can understand a writer changing his mind in a secomd or third year because of something he learned or new metrics.
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
7,396
CA
I don't agree with the voters' exclusion of (confirmed) steroid users, and would have voted for Bonds, Clemens, A-Rod and Manny (and possibly McGwire, Sosa, I'd even give Palmeiro a hearing-out). But I don't think their exclusion makes the Hall "a joke". The voters are being pretty internally-consistent about it. Everyone who's not getting the votes their careers would otherwise have merited were suspended for steroids violations, some of them twice. David Ortiz and Gary Sheffield, even though named on the Mitchell Report, never were - and they've had no problems.

I just wonder what the HOF will euphemistically call the era committee they convene to put all of them in "without regard to PED violations". The Needle Era Committee? Jolt and the Juice committee?
Not to be a bugaboo in this thread, but the misinformation out there about Ortiz has always bothered me. To be clear:

- David Ortiz was not referenced in the Mitchell Report
- David Ortiz was not mentioned in the Biogenesis Investigation/Scandal
- David Ortiz was not mentioned by Victor Conte or any other Balco people
- David Ortiz was not mentioned by Radomski or any other PED peddler
- David Ortiz was never suspended by MLB for PEDs (I know you referenced this)

In 2009, it was referenced that David Ortiz was on a list of MLB players in 2003 that failed a PED test in Spring Training — before PEDs were banned by MLB — and in a test that included many different substances, including ephedrine, which at the time, was fairly common in many OTC supplements.

I’m not some crazy Ortiz defender or Boston homer, these are just the facts. (I’ve had this argument with Shaughnessy over email like 6 times). He may have cheated along the way like many MLBers, but these are the facts.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
16,175
Right. He tested positive for something, but not all the substances tested for were banned substances.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
23,320
Pittsburgh, PA
edit: I appreciate RG33's correction, first and foremost.

But my point is that mere rumor and innuendo and such like that isn't enough to get voters to shut you out. In 2009, the baseball universe was tittering about the Ortiz stuff (and others who were on the purported list). A decade later they're voting him in. But not so much his longtime slugging partner, who if he'd just accepted the end of his career with grace in 2008, is in Cooperstown already, imo.

As such, I prefer to think they just shot down Gary Sheffield purely on the sporting merits of his career.
 
Last edited:

trekfan55

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 29, 2004
11,751
Panama
Right. He tested positive for something, but not all the substances tested for were banned substances.
If I understand correctly he was on a list that came even before the Mitchell report.

He has said he was tested a lot throughout his career once testing got started.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
21,608
Maine
If I understand correctly he was on a list that came even before the Mitchell report.

He has said he was tested a lot throughout his career once testing got started.
Yes. As a part of the 2002 CBA, MLB and MLBPA agreed to drug testing. As a way to prove that a testing program was needed, there was a single league-wide test. If a certain percentage of players turned up positive, that would trigger the full program to begin the next season. The test was supposed to be entirely anonymous (just numbers, no names or ways to match name to sample), yet somehow there was a list of 100 or so players that tested positive. Ortiz is one of the few names that leaked as allegedly being on that list, as was Manny.

Like you said, Ortiz never actually tested positive when the real program got going. Manny on the other hand....
 

trekfan55

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 29, 2004
11,751
Panama
Yes. As a part of the 2002 CBA, MLB and MLBPA agreed to drug testing. As a way to prove that a testing program was needed, there was a single league-wide test. If a certain percentage of players turned up positive, that would trigger the full program to begin the next season. The test was supposed to be entirely anonymous (just numbers, no names or ways to match name to sample), yet somehow there was a list of 100 or so players that tested positive. Ortiz is one of the few names that leaked as allegedly being on that list, as was Manny.

Like you said, Ortiz never actually tested positive when the real program got going. Manny on the other hand....
Not saying anything about Manny. Loved him as a player, loved his swing, loved Manny being Manny. My youngest daughter was about 3-4 years old and even she recognized Manny when he popped up on screen.

But he tested positive and did so multiple times.

Now back to Ortiz, while his name popped up on a list, we have no idea what he tested positive for, what they were looking for or even what the parameters of the tests were, since the tests were a measure to try and implement a testing program/regime.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,841
Not to be a bugaboo in this thread, but the misinformation out there about Ortiz has always bothered me. To be clear:

- David Ortiz was not referenced in the Mitchell Report
- David Ortiz was not mentioned in the Biogenesis Investigation/Scandal
- David Ortiz was not mentioned by Victor Conte or any other Balco people
- David Ortiz was not mentioned by Radomski or any other PED peddler
- David Ortiz was never suspended by MLB for PEDs (I know you referenced this)

In 2009, it was referenced that David Ortiz was on a list of MLB players in 2003 that failed a PED test in Spring Training — before PEDs were banned by MLB — and in a test that included many different substances, including ephedrine, which at the time, was fairly common in many OTC supplements.

I’m not some crazy Ortiz defender or Boston homer, these are just the facts. (I’ve had this argument with Shaughnessy over email like 6 times). He may have cheated along the way like many MLBers, but these are the facts.
Yes. As a part of the 2002 CBA, MLB and MLBPA agreed to drug testing. As a way to prove that a testing program was needed, there was a single league-wide test. If a certain percentage of players turned up positive, that would trigger the full program to begin the next season. The test was supposed to be entirely anonymous (just numbers, no names or ways to match name to sample), yet somehow there was a list of 100 or so players that tested positive. Ortiz is one of the few names that leaked as allegedly being on that list, as was Manny.

Like you said, Ortiz never actually tested positive when the real program got going. Manny on the other hand....
Now back to Ortiz, while his name popped up on a list, we have no idea what he tested positive for, what they were looking for or even what the parameters of the tests were, since the tests were a measure to try and implement a testing program/regime.
And yet, Shaughnessy to this day continues at every opportunity he gets to express his faux-outrage that Manfred "pardoned" Ortiz for "testing positive for PEDs". Shank literally refuses to acknowledge the basic facts of the case, none of which are in any dispute; usually, he outright lies about Ortiz's "positive test".

The real scandal is (a) why there was a list of names in the first place; and (b) why a judge saw fit that the list should be released in such a way that it would almost certainly get leaked to the press.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,457
And yet, Shaughnessy to this day continues at every opportunity he gets to express his faux-outrage that Manfred "pardoned" Ortiz for "testing positive for PEDs". Shank literally refuses to acknowledge the basic facts of the case, none of which are in any dispute; usually, he outright lies about Ortiz's "positive test".

The real scandal is (a) why there was a list of names in the first place; and (b) why a judge saw fit that the list should be released in such a way that it would almost certainly get leaked to the press.
Also C- Why on a list of 104 names is Ortiz pretty much the only name that was ever actually leaked
 

Sandwich Pick

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2017
797
And yet, Shaughnessy to this day continues at every opportunity he gets to express his faux-outrage that Manfred "pardoned" Ortiz for "testing positive for PEDs". Shank literally refuses to acknowledge the basic facts of the case, none of which are in any dispute; usually, he outright lies about Ortiz's "positive test".

The real scandal is (a) why there was a list of names in the first place; and (b) why a judge saw fit that the list should be released in such a way that it would almost certainly get leaked to the press.
"The Game" by Jon Pessah does a pretty good deep dive into the entire Selig-Fehr era and on this subject.