Hall of Fame balloting

[terrisus]

The 10 people limit is fine; if you are having trouble with that, you are voting too many in anyway.


I think the main issue is that there are a number of players who, absent the PED issue, would have been in already. But, since they're not, for the people voting for them, they're building up and taking up space.

 

[Ananti]

 
The thing with that, is that with any common sense, there probably are players already in the Hall that took steroids.  And with certainty, there are players that took chemical enhancement in amphetamines,  Do I think greenies are as bad as steroids?  No.  But it is a form of cheating. 
 
Plus the culture in the 1994-2002 range was to look the other way.  MLB practically endorsed PED use.  I'm for some forgiveness just to move on and acknowledge the era, but I don't want a disproportionate amount of players in the Hall from that era.  So I say yes to Bonds and Clemens, but no to Palmeiro, Sosa, and McGwire.

 
Because I am not in favor of penalizing people based on rumor and innuendos.  The people I'm talking about, such as Rose (with gambling on baseball) and Clemens, and Bonds, among others, where the evidence against them makes it a virtual certainty that they are guilty.
 
I also think that the criteria for kicking a person out who's already voted in should be far much higher than preventing admission. This way you avoid the constant rehashing of people who are already in. Nobody wants a scenrio where everytime some new evidence is found we have another debate on whether several members who are already in should be kicked out again. Once you're in, you're in. It would have to be something truly earth-shattering to change that.
 
The correct place to have the gatekeeper for the HOF is at the time of admission into the HOF, so arguing we shouldn't keep Bonds out because of what we now know about players in the 70s is not at all a persuasive argument with me.

 

[BigMike]

 
Because I am not in favor of penalizing people based on rumor and innuendos.  The people I'm talking about, such as Rose (with gambling on baseball) and Clemens, and Bonds, among others, where the evidence against them makes it a virtual certainty that they are guilty.
 
I also think that the criteria for kicking a person out who's already voted in should be far much higher than preventing admission. This way you avoid the constant rehashing of people who are already in. Nobody wants a scenrio where everytime some new evidence is found we have another debate on whether several members who are already in should be kicked out again. Once you're in, you're in. It would have to be something truly earth-shattering to change that.
 
The correct place to have the gatekeeper for the HOF is at the time of admission into the HOF, so arguing we shouldn't keep Bonds out because of what we now know about players in the 70s is not at all a persuasive argument with me.

 
But while I am 100% certain Clemens used steroids and was long before he was outed, even in his cases there is nothing but rumors and innuendo.  There is the testimony and tainted evidence collected by a less than reputable individual.
 
But even know at the gatekeeper people have to make judgements on players based on what rumors they deem credible and what they don't.  Which star's improvement in his 30's seems legit and which seems questionable.

 

[Rough Carrigan]

I would vote for the following:
 
Bagwell
Biggio
Bonds
Clemens
Glavine
Maddux
Piazza
Raines
Schilling
Thomas
 
Just outside but for whom I would vote except for the 10 vote limit:  Mussina, Edgar Martinez
Might get voted in but simply does not deserve it:  Jack Morris.

 

[getfoul]

No matter what you think of Jack Morris, I don't think it's wrong to say that the steroids are keeping him out of the Hall of Fame.
 
If Bonds and Clemens would have got in last year...if Piazza, Biggio, and Bagwell didn't have suspicions...and if McGwire, Sosa, and Palmeiro weren't still on the ballot, Morris more than likely would have gotten enough support to go over 75% on his last ballot. 
 
I can't blame some of the voters for dropping Morris for better players, but historically when a guy is knocking on the door one year, the next year he goes in.  That's probably not going to happen for Morris because of the steroid era he barely played in.

 

[Rough Carrigan]

I disagree.  Without the steroid era, I don't think Morris would be close.  His candidacy has become the convenient way for bitter, old, ignorant dipshits like Dan Shaughnessy to somehow make a point to the new generation of writers and devotees of sabremetrics and also to salute a pitcher who was there before (they think, ha!) steroids.    Was there any real sentiment after he first became eligible for induction that Morris deserved it? 

 

[getfoul]

To say Jack Morris is polarizing is an understatement.  I'm not getting into a pissing match, but I'll say he's a unique case for the time he played...his peak of 1979-1992.
 
For a 14-year period (not just the 80's), he had a 3.77 ERA which is on the high side, but he averaged 7.28 innings per start, while the rest of the AL averaged 6.23 innings per start.  That's pretty remarkable.
 
His teams won at a higher rate when he was on the mound compared to the rest of his team.  And he was a big part of a couple championship teams.  He's closer to the borderline than a lot of people want to give him credit for. 
 
This will be my last post on Jack Morris. 

 

[zenter]

 
So  basically you are saying that Bonds Prior to 1999 and Clemens prior to 1997 are just like EVERY other player who played the game from the mid 1960s through now.  Guys who might have possibly done something

 
Precisely. As long as MLB did nothing about that particular cheating, BBWA shouldn't stand on some imagined moral high ground in the absence of knowledge. After 2005? Sure.
 
Absence of evidence is a useless standard, and presence of evidence at a moment does not negate presence before or after said time (ie, who says Bonds hasn't doped since high school?). On top of that, presence of unfounded suspicion (see: Bagwell) ought not be indictable.
 
Ultimately, FAR too many shadows and far too few slivers of light to make sense of this picture. Let's ignore it and focus on what we know - lots of stats and MLB tacit acceptance of doping.
 

 
How about this analogy.  Joe gets busted for possession of pot last week.  Joe and Bob belong to the same club that has them in close contact for extended periods.  What are the odds Bob is unaware of Joes pot use, and what are the odds that Bob has experimented with some of what Joe had to offer?.
Being a suspect is not proof of course, its possible Bob is clueless, but you are still going to be suspicious.
 
I guess what I am saying is, assuming players like Boggs and Gwynn are clean (absence of evidence is not proof), what responsibility did they have to call out teammates who were cheating?.   How plausible is it that players were clueless or were protecting those who are cheating at their expense?.  The fact that neither player, or almost any of the other clean players said anything at the time tells us what?. 
 
/snip/
 
Vote them all in and put an asterisk next to the names of those unlucky enough to have got caught, since I am sure there are many more users than we know of.

 
The era has an asterisk by it. No need to assign it to each individual. And we'll never know the extent cheating went on then. Heck, we barely know how much cheating is going on now. That said, several great players left the game at around the same time so we have a bit of a backlog. That is coincides with an identified era of cheating might mean something, might mean nothing. I claim no knowledge, and can only base my opinions on what I know to be facts.

 

[JohntheBaptist]

The view that the HOF is some reward/ punishment for the players is very misguided to me.  Sure, keeping someone out is literally "punishing" them in the sense that it isn't likely how they want it to play out, but the HOF was created as an historical institution.  You don't get to wish history away.  Yes, Pete Rose violated a central rule of the game, and has been banished for it as a result.  Pretending then that he and his no-field activity didn't exist or isn't worthy and thus keeping him from the HOF is infantile.  Any writer doing it in that instance or the PED ones is expressing what his vote really means to him: meting out "justice" in either direction.  Anyone that votes with the idea that they're going to right some wrong is just missing the point entirely.
 
Acknowledge the accomplishments and then provide context for it.  Of course they can be in the HOF, those things happened and were a part of the culture of baseball in a major way for a period of time.  The Hall should then also have extensive acknowledgment of that culture, including clearly identifying those in the Hall that were caught doing it. 

 

[sdiaz1]

There are few things I detest more than the yearly Hall of Fame steroids debate. These sports writers are full of crap. They brag about their access inside the locker rooms, about their connections to players, trainers, staff and other various sources. Yet, they all pretend that they were in the dark about the use of steroids and PEDS during the 80's - early 2000's as they made their careers writing about the home run chase, Bonds dominance, and Roger Clemens' resurgence.  I was eleven when Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire broke 62, and I remember joking with my brother and father about how they both (Sosa especially) seemed so much bigger than they did a few years before (using the science of baseball card comparison) and even being aware of the distinct possibility that these guys were using substances to support their super-human growth.
 
I also have zero patience when people argue that steroid tainted players should not be in the hall of fame based on some moral high ground. There are racists and segregationists in Cooperstown, there are hall of famer anti-Semites and homophobes,  there are womanizers and wife beaters. Letting in a few guys who injected needles in their ass, so that they could be better at the sport will hardly do anything to tarnish the legacy of the hall of fame any more than all of those of previously elected players do. If you think it does, then you should reassess your values.

 

[redsahx]

The 10 people limit is fine; if you are having trouble with that, you are voting too many in anyway.
 
Bagwell
Biggio
Bonds
Clemens
Glavine
Maddux
Piazza
Thomas

 
Two problems with that sentiment.
 
#1 You used 8 votes yourself, so you're not that far off. Picking 10 arbitrarily as a suitable max without relating that to the current field of candidates is not a compelling argument. Are you telling me that it is impossible for there to actually be more than 10 worthy candidates at a time? Are you saying anyone you left off your list (like Schilling) you would never consider in the future as a worthy candidate?
 
#2 You combine that rule with the fact that guys can be kicked off the ballot for failing to reach a minimum % on any given year, and you'll get guys who otherwise would have received the necessary votes without this current backlog potentially getting ripped off the ballot permanently. When astute writers like Posnanski are using all 10 votes (and in his case saying he'd use 15 if he could), I don't think that 10 is too many given the current crop of candidates. I'm not sure if Edgar Martinez or Larry Walker or Alan Trammel are HOFers or not, but they deserve future consideration just as much as guys like Rice, Blyleven and Morris did. With the current situation, such players are at risk of premature elimination in my mind.
 
Either eliminate the 10 vote limit, or don't kick players off the ballot for failing to reach the minimum vote threshold just once.

 

[TheYaz67]

Might get voted in but simply does not deserve it:  Jack Morris.

 
Well, reading back over these 3 pages and glancing at who folks here would vote for, it's pretty clear that SoSH would not be including Morris if it was up to us - I don't think 25% of us listed him.  I think he again does not make it, because Maddux, Glavine and the other new guys combined with the 10 vote limit will dilute his total - I predict fewer votes than last year actually....

 

[TheYaz67]

Another interesting thing to watch is the fate of Palmeiro and Sosa specifically - both could actually drop off the ballot this year by failing to get 5%. 
 
Palmeiro was at only 8.8% last year, and Sosa at 12.5%.  Palmeiro dropped from over 12% in the 2012 vote (72 votes to just 50 votes last year).  With the addition of "sure things" such as Maddux, if Palmeiro and/or Sosa were already at the bottom of your list last year (for those voters who are okay voting for the roiders), they likely get pushed off the bottom on this ballot.  Its astonishing to think that a guy with 3,000+ hits and 500+ HR could be entirely OFF the ballot after just 4 years (while Mattingly persists for 14 years now)....

 

[redsahx]

Another interesting thing to watch is the fate of Palmeiro and Sosa specifically - both could actually drop off the ballot this year by failing to get 5%. 
 
Palmeiro was at only 8.8% last year, and Sosa at 12.5%.  Palmeiro dropped from over 12% in the 2012 vote (72 votes to just 50 votes last year).  With the addition of "sure things" such as Maddux, if Palmeiro and/or Sosa were already at the bottom of your list last year (for those voters who are okay voting for the roiders), they likely get pushed off the bottom on this ballot.  Its astonishing to think that a guy with 3,000+ hits and 500+ HR could be entirely OFF the ballot after just 4 years (while Mattingly persists for 14 years now)....

 
While I wouldn't currently vote for either guy, I'd prefer to see them hang around on the ballot for the full term so we could continue to revisit them over the next decade-plus. Palmeiro was a really likeable guy and I think a good ambassador for the game. It's a shame he's felt the need to essentially go into hiding. I'm not comfortable yet making a definitive judgement on him.
 
If this backlog ever eases, I wonder if a good number of voters would write-in Palmeiro or Sosa in the future (assuming they fall off the ballot).

 

[snowmanny]

Palmiero is fascinating. He is a Hall Of Famer if we use any precedent criteria, but even the "let them all in" contingent won't vote for him.

 

[zenter]

Palmiero is fascinating. He is a Hall Of Famer if we use any precedent criteria, but even the "let them all in" contingent won't vote for him.

 
... because there are more compelling players ahead of him.

 

[BigMike]

So how many turd in the punchbowl votes do we get that leave Maddux off their ballot?
 
I assume there will be some number of blank ballot's returned.   they are idiots
 
How many clowns actually return a ballot that has people on it, but no Maddux?

 

[terrisus]

So how many turd in the punchbowl votes do we get that leave Maddux off their ballot?
 
I assume there will be some number of blank ballot's returned.   they are idiots
 
How many clowns actually return a ballot that has people on it, but no Maddux?

 
Probably half a dozen - goodness knows, can't have him getting a higher vote percentage than Tom Seaver.

 

[redsahx]

Palmiero is fascinating. He is a Hall Of Famer if we use any precedent criteria, but even the "let them all in" contingent won't vote for him.

 
"Let them all in" doesn't necessarily mean "treat their stats as they are". The people who are willing to vote for steroid users also generally subscribe to the idea of scrutinizing the numbers a bit more. Palmeiro's 500 plus home runs no longer stand out given how routine great power numbers were in the era. Essentially Palmeiro is just a slightly better version than Fred McGriff, and that's before you get to the fact that Palmeiro was tied to PED use and McGriff wasn't. Was Palmeiro's career extended by PED use allowing him to pass the 3,000 hit mark? If so, if you take away PEDs would he only have had as many career hits as say Bill Buckner? I think it's easy to picture Palmeiro as simply Mark Grace on steroids.

 

[OttoC]

Was I thinking I was watching a Hall of Fame ballplayer when I watched Palmeiro play? No. Was I thinking I was watching an HOFer when I followed Garciaparra. No doubt...then the world caved in.
 
I recall doing a statistical comparison of Jim Rice and Dave Winfield while Rice was still having good years. The two were almost exact contemporaries but Rice was getting the black and gray ink. No doubt which of the two was leading the HOF parade until Rice's career came to an unusual swift end and Winfield kept rolling on, piling up interesting longevity numbers.
 
I don't imagine that I am the only one who sees the big numbers first and eventually realizes that the real stars are those who put up the big numbers for many, many years and who are slow to see (or do not/will not see) those who just pile up better than average numbers for a long time. If you see them every day, you might develop a different perspective.

 

[Ananti]

There are few things I detest more than the yearly Hall of Fame steroids debate. These sports writers are full of crap. They brag about their access inside the locker rooms, about their connections to players, trainers, staff and other various sources. Yet, they all pretend that they were in the dark about the use of steroids and PEDS during the 80's - early 2000's as they made their careers writing about the home run chase, Bonds dominance, and Roger Clemens' resurgence.  I was eleven when Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire broke 62, and I remember joking with my brother and father about how they both (Sosa especially) seemed so much bigger than they did a few years before (using the science of baseball card comparison) and even being aware of the distinct possibility that these guys were using substances to support their super-human growth.
 
I also have zero patience when people argue that steroid tainted players should not be in the hall of fame based on some moral high ground. There are racists and segregationists in Cooperstown, there are hall of famer anti-Semites and homophobes,  there are womanizers and wife beaters. Letting in a few guys who injected needles in their ass, so that they could be better at the sport will hardly do anything to tarnish the legacy of the hall of fame any more than all of those of previously elected players do. If you think it does, then you should reassess your values.

 
You "having no patience" is not an argument, it's an attitude, it doesn't persuade. 

 

[Jim Lonborg]

Maddux
Glavine
Thomas
Schilling
Clemens
Bonds
Bagwell
Piazza
Biggio
Raines

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

Was I thinking I was watching a Hall of Fame ballplayer when I watched Palmeiro play? No. Was I thinking I was watching an HOFer when I followed Garciaparra. No doubt...then the world caved in.
 
I recall doing a statistical comparison of Jim Rice and Dave Winfield while Rice was still having good years. The two were almost exact contemporaries but Rice was getting the black and gray ink. No doubt which of the two was leading the HOF parade until Rice's career came to an unusual swift end and Winfield kept rolling on, piling up interesting longevity numbers.
 
I don't imagine that I am the only one who sees the big numbers first and eventually realizes that the real stars are those who put up the big numbers for many, many years and who are slow to see (or do not/will not see) those who just pile up better than average numbers for a long time. If you see them every day, you might develop a different perspective.

 
The problem with this approach is that it tends to diminish guys (in the public perception) who are really good at a lot of things over a really long time - as opposed to having lots of Black Ink in the sexy categories. Prime examples are Dwight Evans, (and Darrel Evans for that matter), Lou Whitaker, Alan Trammell  ,and Bobby Grich. I think it's obvious that these guys should be in the Hall - but Chicks Dig the Long Ball.

 

[OttoC]

 
The problem with this approach is that it tends to diminish guys (in the public perception) who are really good at a lot of things over a really long time - as opposed to having lots of Black Ink in the sexy categories. Prime examples are Dwight Evans, (and Darrel Evans for that matter), Lou Whitaker, Alan Trammell  ,and Bobby Grich. I think it's obvious that these guys should be in the Hall - but Chicks Dig the Long Ball.

 
I think that is what I sort of implied. Unless that type of player is in front of you every day, he probably doesn't get the attention of most people. I didn't say it was right; it just tends to fit in with human nature.

 

[Dgilpin]

Jeff Bagwell
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Greg Maddux
Mike Mussia
Mike Piazza
Tim Raines
Frank Thomas
Tom Glavine
Fred McGriff
 
Kent and Schilling would be on my ballot as well

 

[ivanvamp]

I think that gets to the whole, really good player for a really long time vs. incredible player over a short period of time argument.  
 
For example, who, between these two pitchers, was the "greatest"?  (I am deliberately not defining that term) - Pedro Martinez or Greg Maddux?  
 
The case for Maddux:
- Maddux had far better counting stats:  355 w vs. 219 w; 5008.1 ip vs. 2827.1 ip; 3371 k vs. 3154 k, etc.
- Maddux won 4 CYAs vs. 3 for Pedro
- 104.6 bWAR vs. 86.0 bWAR
- 23 seasons vs. 18 seasons
 
The case for Pedro:
- His rate stats were better:  .687 win percentage vs. .610; 2.93 era vs. 3.16; 154 era+ vs. 132; 1.05 whip vs. 1.14; 10.0 k/9 vs. 6.1
- His peak 7-year stretch from 1997-2003 was far better than Maddux' peak 7-year stretch from 1992-1998:  
   **Pedro:  118-36 (.766), 2.20 era, 213 era+, 0.94 whip, 11.3 k/9, 57.2 bWAR
   **Maddux:  127-53 (.706), 2.15 era, 190 era+, 0.97 whip, 6.9 k/9, 54.6 bWAR
- Best single season, Pedro was better:
   **Pedro (2000):  18-6, 1.74 era, 291 era+, 284 k, 0.74 whip, 11.8 k/9, 11.7 bWAR
   **Maddux (1995):  19-2, 1.63 era, 260 era+, 181 k, 0.81 whip, 7.8 k/9, 9.7 bWAR (so Pedro's best season was 2 wins better than Maddux')
 
So Maddux was better for longer (and obviously his prime was still insanely good, so he's not really in the category of "really good for a long time"; he was *GREAT* for a really long time), but at their very best, Pedro was simply better than Maddux was, and not simply for a single year, but rather for a long 7-year stretch.  
 
So who was the greater pitcher?  It's really hard to say, because there's a lot to be said for either guy, each bringing his own strengths to the table.  Give me Pedro in any one-game situation, but Maddux might be the guy if you are building a franchise and saying, we want one guy's entire career.

 

[SumnerH]

 
I think that is what I sort of implied. Unless that type of player is in front of you every day, he probably doesn't get the attention of most people. I didn't say it was right; it just tends to fit in with human nature.

 
I'll go a step further:  I think peaks actually do matter and voting should reflect that.  They're in a large part what make the top players amazing to watch.  They create "fame" (in the real-world sense) far more than longevity stats do.

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
I also have zero patience when people argue that steroid tainted players should not be in the hall of fame based on some moral high ground. There are racists and segregationists in Cooperstown, there are hall of famer anti-Semites and homophobes,  there are womanizers and wife beaters. Letting in a few guys who injected needles in their ass, so that they could be better at the sport will hardly do anything to tarnish the legacy of the hall of fame any more than all of those of previously elected players do. If you think it does, then you should reassess your values.

 
Really?  If you want to keep a guy out of Cooperstown because he's racist or he beat his wife I have no problem with that.  Character should be part of the analysis.  But that's the same as a guy who not only cheated and broke the law but also artificially inflated his stats to make him appear to be a better player than he actually was?  If we're going to let all of the assholes in then at least make sure it's limited to only the assholes who we know deserve to be there based on legitimate performance on the field.

 

[mt8thsw9th]

This is Jack Morris final year on the ballot. Coming off his 67% last year, he will get the final sympathy votes needed to get in. They should put his Hall of Fame plaque with Bert Blylevens next to the restrooms.

 
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/WAR_pitch_career.shtml
 
It's not perfect, but putting Blyleven in the same category as Morris or Jim Rice is categorically insane. It's not his fault he was underrated unlike those two, one of which was "most feared hitter" yet never IBB more then 10 times in a season, and the other "best pitcher in the 1980s" that never led the league in any meaningful pitching statistic. 

 

[Leather]

 
I'll go a step further:  I think peaks actually do matter and voting should reflect that.  They're in a large part what make the top players amazing to watch.  They create "fame" (in the real-world sense) far more than longevity stats do.

 
I agree with this.  Or, if not a consistent "peak", I think a HOF player needs to at least have two to three signature seasons, where he was at least among the very best at his position (if not the game entirely).  You can't be a HOFer if you spent your entire career being good but undistinguished, like Palmeiro.  Of course it's best if the distinguishing takes place during the player's career, but post-hoc realization of greatness is fine, too.
 
Obviously, it's a sliding scale.  Having a respectably-long career, having a sustained peak or having non-consecutive signature seasons, having sufficient accumulation stats...all of these are necessary but not sufficient, and being strong in one area can overcome a weaker area, but every box has to at least be capable of being checked.

 

[OttoC]

...
I also have zero patience when people argue that steroid tainted players should not be in the hall of fame based on some moral high ground. There are racists and segregationists in Cooperstown, there are hall of famer anti-Semites and homophobes,  there are womanizers and wife beaters. Letting in a few guys who injected needles in their ass, so that they could be better at the sport will hardly do anything to tarnish the legacy of the hall of fame any more than all of those of previously elected players do. If you think it does, then you should reassess your values.

 
From the HoF voting rules (emphasis, mine):
 
5. Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
 
There certainly have been a number of players already elected to the Hall whose integrity/character can be questioned. A problem is that these two factors are nowhere defined and writers with grudges against other teams or players, or writers who seek attention, can use them to satisfy their own agendas.
 
Athletes using drugs and "improving" their equipment to get an edge goes back a long ways. How could you compare what was done then to what was done recently? If you are going to deny players a spot in the Hall of Fame today because of integrity/character, should you not remove players from the Hall who do not pass that test?

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Ken Gurnick, MLB.com Dodgers beat writer, is a special kind of stupid.  From the MLB.com staff official ballots...
 

 
[his entire ballot:] Morris
Morris has flaws -- a 3.90 ERA, for example. But he gets my vote for more than a decade of ace performance that included three 20-win seasons, Cy Young Award votes in seven seasons and Most Valuable Players votes in five. As for those who played during the period of PED use, I won't vote for any of them.

 

[glennhoffmania]

Reading some of those explanations makes me want to cry.

 

[soxhop411]

Ken Gurnick, MLB.com Dodgers beat writer, is a special kind of stupid. From the MLB.com staff official ballots...

Would have been better to turn in a blank ballot (but still horrible)

 

[Seabass]

Steroids blinked into existence in 1995. Scientists haven't been able to pin down exactly where they came from, but most believe it had something to do with the debut of JAG.

 

[Fishercat]

Guernick, Noble, and to a lesser extent Terrence Moore are probably more disgraceful with regards to their influence on the Hall than the people they refuse to vote for are.

 

[Fishercat]

Here is last year's version too:
 
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130107&content_id=40873294&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb
 
Gurnick and Noble did this last year, and somehow Tim Raines, Mike Piazza, and Jeff Bagwell lost their HoF mojo over the past year according to Moore.

 

[Easy Ed Cota]

14/17 vote for Morris, 4/17 vote for Raines.
 
My word.

 

[Leather]

"More than a decade of ace performance" is just flat-out crap.
 
I mean, unless you consider years with an ERA+ 97, 79, and 89 "ace" caliber.

 

[Spacemans Bong]

Here is last year's version too:
 
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130107&content_id=40873294&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb
 
Gurnick and Noble did this last year, and somehow Tim Raines, Mike Piazza, and Jeff Bagwell lost their HoF mojo over the past year according to Moore.

 
Gurnick in 2011 voted for Dawson, Gwynn, Gossage, Smith, Ripken and a load of other people who all played in the steroid era. What a sack of shit. 

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

"More than a decade of ace performance" is just flat-out crap.
 
I mean, unless you consider years with an ERA+ 97, 79, and 89 "ace" caliber.

 
His career ERA+ is 105. League average, just about. For every good year he had a bad one to balance it. Got a 20 win season with Toronto in '92 despite an ERA+ of 101 because the team was stacked and gave him stupidly good run support. And he sucked in the '92 WS.
 
I'm not usually in favor of pulling votes, but this is so egregiously stupid, both in his argument for Morris and his refusal to face facts regarding the other candidates, that I'd make an exception in Gurnick's case. Pull his fucking vote. I mean, you're pissed about steroids so you won't vote for Greg Maddux, the doughy-est Hall of Famer ever? Chree-ist, that is head-wound dumb.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Steroids blinked into existence in 1995. Scientists haven't been able to pin down exactly where they came from, but most believe it had something to do with the debut of JAG.

 
Yeah, that's the part that gets me about the PED era line.  We don't know for certain when steroids and those kinds of things came into use (though we have Canseco admitting he used his whole career which dates back to at least 1986, his rookie year).  But what about greenies?  Those are now a banned performance enhancing substance, and we have documented use of those dating back to the late 60s at least (Ball Four).  I'd be damned surprised if Jack Morris didn't partake in some greenies to get himself amped for games.  Maybe he was on greenies during Game 7, 1991.

 

[ivanvamp]

After reading this article on Gurnick (http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/24401339/greg-maddux-will-not-be-the-first-unanimous-hall-of-fame-inductee), I wonder what, exactly, a person has to do to get a HOF vote.  Because voting for Jack Morris but not Greg Maddux is like voting for Jimmy Carter or Gerald Ford for the Presidential Hall of Fame but not FDR or Abraham Lincoln.

 

[BigMike]

I am of the belief that people should be stripped of their votes for exceptional Stupidity,  and Gurnick fits that group.
 
Noble at least voted for Glavine and Maddux.   I think he is wrong and misguided as he attempts to determine in his mind who is clean or not
 
Anyone who doesn't vote Maddux should lose their right to vote
 
The PED era stuff is crap,   but if you are going to make a stand on not voting for PED era, you need to at least recognize that the more public face of the era started with the Bash brothers in 87.  (although I have no doubt steroids influenced the game at least a decade, and probably 2 decades earlier)

 

[nattysez]

Ken Rosenthal and Jon Heyman are whining on Twitter about people attacking Gurnick.  They just don't get it.

 

[zenter]

 
Yeah, that's the part that gets me about the PED era line.  We don't know for certain when steroids and those kinds of things came into use (though we have Canseco admitting he used his whole career which dates back to at least 1986, his rookie year).  But what about greenies?  Those are now a banned performance enhancing substance, and we have documented use of those dating back to the late 60s at least (Ball Four).  I'd be damned surprised if Jack Morris didn't partake in some greenies to get himself amped for games.  Maybe he was on greenies during Game 7, 1991.

 
Also: The non-banned-but-controlled substances list changed quite a bit over the years, and changed behaviors.
 
IIRC, a cortisone injection needs to be reported (and theoretically approved) by MLB these days because cortisone is a steroid. Short-term, it's an anti-inflammatory that helps mask the body's response to minor damage, thus helping players perform. We cannot begin to count how many players were taking cortisone shots to get them through the bangs and bruises of a season.
 
PEDs - both banned and controlled - have long histories in sports, going further back that the 1980s, certainly. There's no good reason to assume baseball somehow avoided it before the 1994 strike (EDIT: or the mid-80s, for that matter). It's nigh-on-impossible to untangle this web and draw distinctions, and probably best to stop trying.

 

[terrisus]

Ken Gurnick, MLB.com Dodgers beat writer, is a special kind of stupid.  From the MLB.com staff official ballots...
 

 
Well, there goes any chance of Maddux being elected unanimously (not that that was going to happen regardless, what with people submitting completely blank ballots anyway)

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

I am of the belief that people should be stripped of their votes for exceptional Stupidity,  and Gurnick fits that group.
 
Noble at least voted for Glavine and Maddux.   I think he is wrong and misguided as he attempts to determine in his mind who is clean or not
 
Anyone who doesn't vote Maddux should lose their right to vote
 
The PED era stuff is crap,   but if you are going to make a stand on not voting for PED era, you need to at least recognize that the more public face of the era started with the Bash brothers in 87.  (although I have no doubt steroids influenced the game at least a decade, and probably 2 decades earlier)

 
Regardless of how one tries to navigate the PED issue, not voting for anyone coming from a hazily self defined era is beyond stupid and should result in being stripped of their ballot. You can cite the character clauses to make a case for ignoring the PED guys .. But there's nothing in there about ignoring dozens of worthy players based on when they played.
 
If they want to make a statement simply make a public announcement to the effect they are giving up their ballot - it wouldn't be the first time. Stephen Brunt of the Globe and Mail (Toronto) gave up his voting privileges because he was fed up with the whole PED debate and it's effect on the HOF voting.

 

[Kliq]

HOF voting and Reality TV have something in common in that they just seem to get stupider and stupider every single year.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

HOF voting and Reality TV have something in common in that they just seem to get stupider and stupider every single year.

 
Well, to be fair, just imagine if everyone had to make public their rationale for their voting habits of politicians. The mind boggles ..