2013 HOF Voting Preliminary Results-Updated to 173 Ballots
markj111
Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Biggio inches closer. Bonds and Clemens no longer have the same # of votes.
71.1 - Biggio
61.3 - Raines
60.7 - J. Morris
60.1 - Bagwell
59.5 - Piazza
44.5 - Bonds
43.4 - Clemens
38.7 - L. Smith
38.7 - Schilling
37.0 - Trammell
34.7 - E. Martinez
Morris has move up to the #2 spot, but is unlikely to get to 75%. Bagwell is down six percentage points from his peak.
(22.7% of vote ~ based on last year)
Cooperstown = Ghost town? %.
68.7 - Biggio
63.8 - J. Morris
63.1 - Bagwell
62.3 - Raines
60.8 - Piazza
44.6 - Clemens
44.6 - Bonds
40.0 - L. Smith
37.7 - Trammell
37.7 - E. Martinez
36.9 - Schilling
With nearly 21% of the precincts reporting:
68.1 - Biggio
65.6 - Bagwell
63.9 - Piazza
63.0 - Raines
63.0 - J. Morris
45.4 - Clemens
45.4 - Bonds
38.7 - E. Martinez
37.8 - Schilling
37.8 - Trammell
37.0 - L. Smith
It could be a lonely ceremony this year.
68.3 - Biggio
63.0 - Bagwell
61.5 - J. Morris
61.5 - Raines
61.5 - Piazza
44.2 - Clemens
44.2 - Bonds
39.4 - E. Martinez
38.5 - Schilling
37.5 - L. Smith
36.5 - Trammell
Morris has passed Raines. The # of ballots is 16.1% of last years total.
70.7 - Biggio
67.4 - Bagwell
63.0 - J. Morris
62.0 - Raines
60.9 - Piazza
43.5 - Clemens
43.5 - Bonds
39.1 - Schilling
38.0 - Trammell
37.0 - E. Martinez
35.9 - L. Smith
From Baseball Think Factory-14% of last years ballot total.
72.0 - Biggio
68.3 - Bagwell
64.6 - Piazza
63.4 - Raines
62.2 - J. Morris
46.3 - Clemens
46.3 - Bonds
36.6 - Schilling
36.6 - Trammell
36.6 - L. Smith
32.9 - E. Martinez
Now with 81 ballots-Biggio is inching up-
71.6 - Biggio
69.1 - Bagwell
64.6 - Raines
64.2 - Piazza
62.0 - J. Morris
46.9 - Clemens
46.9 - Bonds
37.0 - Schilling
37.0 - Trammell
37.0 - L. Smith
33.3 - E. Martinez
Now with 79 ballots-about 13% of last years total.
70.9 - Biggio
68.4 - Bagwell
64.6 - Raines
64.6 - Piazza
62.0 - J. Morris
48.1 - Clemens
48.1 - Bonds
38.0 - Schilling
36.7 - Trammell
36.7 - L. Smith
31.6 - E. Martinez
17.7 - D. Murphy
17.7 - McGwire
16.5 - McGriff
15.2 - Raffy
15.2 - S. Sosa
13.9 - L. Walker
6.3 - Mattingly
———————————
3.8 - Lofton
2.5 - D. Wells
2.5 - Bernie Williams
2.5 - P. Rose (goofy write-in)
The results from the 74 ballots that have been made public:
70.2 - Biggio
67.6 - Bagwell
63.5 - Raines
63.5 - Piazza
62.2 - J. Morris
48.6 - Clemens
47.3 - Bonds
36.5 - Trammell
35.1 - L. Smith
35.1 - Schilling
31.1 - E. Martinez
71.1 - Biggio
61.3 - Raines
60.7 - J. Morris
60.1 - Bagwell
59.5 - Piazza
44.5 - Bonds
43.4 - Clemens
38.7 - L. Smith
38.7 - Schilling
37.0 - Trammell
34.7 - E. Martinez
Morris has move up to the #2 spot, but is unlikely to get to 75%. Bagwell is down six percentage points from his peak.
(22.7% of vote ~ based on last year)
Cooperstown = Ghost town? %.
68.7 - Biggio
63.8 - J. Morris
63.1 - Bagwell
62.3 - Raines
60.8 - Piazza
44.6 - Clemens
44.6 - Bonds
40.0 - L. Smith
37.7 - Trammell
37.7 - E. Martinez
36.9 - Schilling
With nearly 21% of the precincts reporting:
68.1 - Biggio
65.6 - Bagwell
63.9 - Piazza
63.0 - Raines
63.0 - J. Morris
45.4 - Clemens
45.4 - Bonds
38.7 - E. Martinez
37.8 - Schilling
37.8 - Trammell
37.0 - L. Smith
It could be a lonely ceremony this year.
68.3 - Biggio
63.0 - Bagwell
61.5 - J. Morris
61.5 - Raines
61.5 - Piazza
44.2 - Clemens
44.2 - Bonds
39.4 - E. Martinez
38.5 - Schilling
37.5 - L. Smith
36.5 - Trammell
Morris has passed Raines. The # of ballots is 16.1% of last years total.
70.7 - Biggio
67.4 - Bagwell
63.0 - J. Morris
62.0 - Raines
60.9 - Piazza
43.5 - Clemens
43.5 - Bonds
39.1 - Schilling
38.0 - Trammell
37.0 - E. Martinez
35.9 - L. Smith
From Baseball Think Factory-14% of last years ballot total.
72.0 - Biggio
68.3 - Bagwell
64.6 - Piazza
63.4 - Raines
62.2 - J. Morris
46.3 - Clemens
46.3 - Bonds
36.6 - Schilling
36.6 - Trammell
36.6 - L. Smith
32.9 - E. Martinez
Now with 81 ballots-Biggio is inching up-
71.6 - Biggio
69.1 - Bagwell
64.6 - Raines
64.2 - Piazza
62.0 - J. Morris
46.9 - Clemens
46.9 - Bonds
37.0 - Schilling
37.0 - Trammell
37.0 - L. Smith
33.3 - E. Martinez
Now with 79 ballots-about 13% of last years total.
70.9 - Biggio
68.4 - Bagwell
64.6 - Raines
64.6 - Piazza
62.0 - J. Morris
48.1 - Clemens
48.1 - Bonds
38.0 - Schilling
36.7 - Trammell
36.7 - L. Smith
31.6 - E. Martinez
17.7 - D. Murphy
17.7 - McGwire
16.5 - McGriff
15.2 - Raffy
15.2 - S. Sosa
13.9 - L. Walker
6.3 - Mattingly
———————————
3.8 - Lofton
2.5 - D. Wells
2.5 - Bernie Williams
2.5 - P. Rose (goofy write-in)
The results from the 74 ballots that have been made public:
70.2 - Biggio
67.6 - Bagwell
63.5 - Raines
63.5 - Piazza
62.2 - J. Morris
48.6 - Clemens
47.3 - Bonds
36.5 - Trammell
35.1 - L. Smith
35.1 - Schilling
31.1 - E. Martinez
0
Comments
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>Only players i would vote for on that list is Rose and Bonds. And possibly Biggio. >>
If you are willing to vote for players who have character/PED issues, why would you not put in Clemens? He should be a hands down no debate inductee.
I don't think I'd vote for anyone on that list. >>
Probably right. I dont know enough about Clemens to know when he started using. Bonds was a hall of famer before he juiced.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
Funny thing, when you look at Morris's record when his team DID only score one run, he only won like 5% of those games(or some other ungodly awful percent). He didn't pitch to the score.
His win total is artificially higher than other pitchers because he simply got more run support from his team's offense. He did pitch a lot of innings(which he should get credit for that).
Adding it all up, he simply does not belong.
Baseball,
Are Bagwell and Piazza a no for you because of PED?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Only players i would vote for on that list is Rose and Bonds. And possibly Biggio. >>
If you are willing to vote for players who have character/PED issues, why would you not put in Clemens? He should be a hands down no debate inductee.
I don't think I'd vote for anyone on that list. >>
Probably right. I dont know enough about Clemens to know when he started using. Bonds was a hall of famer before he juiced. >>
That is the problem with the PED thing. Nobody knows enough about every single player. Jeter, Rivera, Frank Thomas, Griffey etc...all get free passes, and I don't have enough confidence that they weren't using when a very high percentage of the league was. To me, I suspect them as much as the rest of the guys. Bagwell and Piazza never tested, and they are suspected just as much as guys like Bonds or McGwire who have tested(or admitted).
The entire era was wrought with users, sorry fellas, probably a lot of your heroes used even if you don't think they did, and even if they never failed one of those joke tests that MLB gave. It is starting to get silly to just be picking out the few whom you suspect used, and then giving free passes to the ones you suspect did not.
<< <i>
<< <i>That is the problem with the PED thing. Nobody knows enough about every single player. Jeter, Rivera, Frank Thomas, Griffey etc...all get free passes, and I don't have enough confidence that they weren't using when a very high percentage of the league was. To me, I suspect them as much as the rest of the guys. Bagwell and Piazza never tested, and they are suspected just as much as guys like Bonds or McGwire who have tested(or admitted).
The entire era was wrought with users, sorry fellas, probably a lot of your heroes used even if you don't think they did, and even if they never failed one of those joke tests that MLB gave. It is starting to get silly to just be picking out the few whom you suspect used, and then giving free passes to the ones you suspect did not. >>
There's a lot more evidence (though it's circumstantial) where Bagwell and Piazza are concerned. The voting clearly proves that they are not "suspected just as much as guys like Bonds or McGwire who have tested(or admitted)". As for Jeter, he's had a very consistent career with not that much in the power number department. Rivera's game was predicated on a cutter, which steroids are not going to help you throw. Frank Thomas has always been THAT big since he teen years. Sure he got bigger but only as anyone would with age and filling into his full adulthood. Griffey was raking since he was a teenager and I think we all saw that "Willie Mays talent" from day one. Now I'm saying any or all of these guys didn't use. But so far, there has been no credible evidence or accusation of them using. To assume these guys used would be "throwing the baby out with the bath water". >>
Those are all reasonable explanations. However, stuff like that was also said about guys like Palmeiro..."he always raked, especially in college, he was always a great hitter and just needed time to develop HR power, and he doesn't have the body type of a roid user."
Or even a guy like Manny Alexander(whom I know was not a good player). He used, he didn't look like he used, and he never had any significant power spikes.
However, it still remains, is it right that circumstantial evidence is keeping Bagwell and Piazza out when both are clear HOF players? Is it also right that so many people got away with and passed those joke PED tests issued by MLB and they will(or have gotten in) the HOF?
It really all is a big joke the way people view it...anyway you slice it.
<< <i>
<< <i>Those are all reasonable explanations. However, stuff like that was also said about guys like Palmeiro..."he always raked, especially in college, he was always a great hitter and just needed time to develop HR power, and he doesn't have the body type of a roid user."
Or even a guy like Manny Alexander(whom I know was not a good player). He used, he didn't look like he used, and he never had any significant power spikes.
However, it still remains, is it right that circumstantial evidence is keeping Bagwell and Piazza out when both are clear HOF players? Is it also right that so many people got away with and passed those joke PED tests issued by MLB and they will(or have gotten in) the HOF?
It really all is a big joke the way people view it...anyway you slice it. >>
Palmeiro was just another highly rated prospect. Griffey was considered a once in a generation player before playing one game in pro baseball. COMPLETELY different. Palmeiro "raked" so good that teams thought to draft him behind 21 other players.
As for Bagwell and Piazza, once again, the circumstantial evidence is clearly there. In the case of Piazza, you even have two former players, one named who accused him which has not been refuted by anyone to my knowledge. He even said of Piazza something to the effect of "everyone knew he was using". And as for Bagwell, he's even more suspicious as far as I'm concerned based on his own comments and his freakish physical transformation.
There are two types of arguments that seem to want to defend users. One says, "Let's assume everyone used." Well, I'm convinced everyone didn't use. The other says there should be some definitive proof of their guilt. But it's not like every player was a murder suspect when they played where you had dozens of professionals going out of their way to spend a lot of time proving they used steroids. Piazza is not a Hall of Famer without PEDs and I'm convinced he used. Bagwell probably not as well. Bonds yes. ARod probably. Clemens probably. >>
I disagree on the view on Palmeiro...he was viewed as a 'pure hitter' type of player. First round is still pretty good
As strong as you are convinced that those guys are clean, I am as strong in my doubt. The tests were useless in deciding all that, and that is the problem. The fact is, these 'clean' players were part of a union that made that happen(BS tests or No tests), and it is their problem or fault that people want to 'throw them out with the bath water' as you say.
If they indeed were clean, then they had the opportunity to rid the league of users with meaningful tests, but they didn't...and there is a strong motive not to have meaningful tests
Baseball, I wonder if you 'explain away' Andy Pettite's use?? You should have the same disdain for him as anyone else, if not then you lose all credibility in the whole debate.
Also, that should taint the Yankees championships too.
What round was Posada drafted in? 24th round? Is he like Piazza then?
<< <i>Being picked 22nd makes you a good potential prospect. Being picked #1 says people EXPECT you to be a superstar. Since the draft began, it's arguable, and probably so, that NO other player has had the type of expectation that Griffey had. He was a pure phenom. Palmeiro was just another good hitter. Every draft class supposedly has dozens of "pure hitter" types. Funny how that works. Virtually NO draft class has players that people describe, without hyperbole, as another "Willie Mays" potential. Griffey was THAT type of prospect.
I never stated that I am strongly convinced that those players didn't use. It's just that there is NOTHING credible to indicate that they did. As for your comment that "they had the opportunity to rid the league of users with meaningful tests, but they didn't...and there is a strong motive not to have meaningful tests". Do you even hear yourself sometimes? I'm not even going to address such ridiculous and illogical comments. >>
Those guys were part of the union, and were mega stars of the league...yeah, I would say they have influence in that stuff. They have motive to avoid meaningful testing.
You are still going on about Griffey being willie mays. All that is understood...however, that still does not change that Palmeiro was viewed as an elite hitter, which remained intact throughout his career; and he was never viewed as a steroid body...yet he was a user(and fans all those years proclaimed him clean like Thomas et...). Those reasons you gave about Thomas etc...are quite similar and do nothing to show that they 'didn't use'. Knowing the environment they were in, the motives to use, and the basic free reign to use whatever...yeah there is more to suspect that your Griffey type guys used as opposed to not. Yet people give them such a free and easy pass(which is probably the main thing I am arguing against).
So, Andy Pettite was a user. Do you explain his use away, or is he lumped in with all the other guys you 'banned' from the Hall of Fame? Which means those Yankee titles aren't exactly clean.
<< <i>Jack Morris gets waaay too much love. It is amazing how people still do not understand run support, and some still believe he 'pitched to the score'. If 'pitching to the score' were a real thing, then if Morris were on a team that scored just one run per game, his ERA would be 0.00, because Morris 'knew how to win'.
Funny thing, when you look at Morris's record when his team DID only score one run, he only won like 5% of those games(or some other ungodly awful percent). He didn't pitch to the score.
His win total is artificially higher than other pitchers because he simply got more run support from his team's offense. He did pitch a lot of innings(which he should get credit for that).
Adding it all up, he simply does not belong. >>
what's funny is a vote for Jack Morris is also a vote for David Wells. Wonder how many years it's going to take them to understand that.
<< <i>First off, guys did speak out. In fact, Frank Thomas was quite voicerferous early on so I'm not sure what the heck you're talking about. I'm sure you'll probably just spin it to say he was covering his own use. For all anyone knows, maybe he was. But as for anyone and everyone speaking out, there were many other players making comments about the need to make sure that "cheating" isn't going on. Just because Jeter or Rivera might not have said anything doesn't prove squat. According to your flimsy type of arguments, I could probably convict every single person on earth of murder, including babies.
Your impression of Palmeiro is one that has been fostered throughout his career and not something he obviously brought with him coming out of college. If he were that much of a sure thing, he would have been picked higher. That isn't even remotely debatable.
It's funny you mention Pettitte, because he is the one guy I might make an exception for that was a user, and I'm not sure I would. Primarily due to the following:
1) He quickly and freely admitted his use when the topic came up and gave a thorough detailed history of everything that it entailed.
2) It appeared to be of limited instances, if one believes him, which I do.
3) He did it to primarily recover from injuries. >>
I remember Palmeiro in College, so I followed him a little more closely than most, and what was said about him. However, again, he had a rep early on, and was promoted as 'clean' by nearly everyone for many of the same reasons you gave about Thomas, Griffey, etc.. yet he was a user, and all your clean guys are just as suspect.
Those guys didn't speak out as much as you think. Even Schilling recanted in the congress hearings about his earlier perception he had of guys on roids.
I had a feeling you would hem and haw about Pettitle. Sorry, unless he is lumped with Palmeiro and condemned as the others, all you say is for nothing because it is coming from bias, and you have lost all credibility.
If you are condemning Bagwell and Piazza based on speculation, Petitte should NOT be getting even second thought from you because it is proven that he did do it!
He didn't run the best, didn't throw well(and those things hurt your draft)...it was all his bat! He may not have been viewed the all around player, but he had views where he was an elite 'pure' hitter. It is in this vein that fandom in the know viewed him in Colllege, and early in his MLB career. It is in this vein that nobody would suspect that he was a user, because the dude could ALWAYS rake! Plus, his body looked sloppy, so taking all that into account, there is no way he was a user, BUT HE WAS. Sound familiar??
Yeah, unfortunately, my view on you regarding Pettite isn't important. It says it itself that you are very bias and puts highly into question any objective debate you partake in.
The fact that you don't lump him in with Palmeiro, and more so Piazza and Bagwell says everything
You are so worried about Palmeiro's draft position. He was viewed as a guy that could always hit, starting in college, and right out of the gate in MLB. He played a long time and nobody suspected he was using roids because he COULD always hit elite(first round draft pick in MLB is elite, lol). He had a sloppy body too. But he used PED's. Just like Frank Thomas was 'always big'. LOL same thing. None of that stuff you used means anything for a defense.
Not pointless about Pettite. I asked you about Pettite. You answered with bias. You can try and say you are being objective and just telling the truth...its just that the truth is bias
You weren;t consistent with Pettite and any other PED user. They did the same thing. If you are going to give doubt for Pettite like you did, then do the same for the other guys...especially guys who never even had it proven that they did it
Your stance you just explained about not knowing if a guy did or didn't do it is what I am talking about. With that reasoning, it is very faulty to be penalize some guys while letting the other guys basically get off scott free. You say you don't know for sure, but yet you give a definitive ruling on whether a guy should be penalized or not.
<< <i>
<< <i>Because it has to do with a Yankee hero, you are using different standard for Pettite. Pick whichever word or phrase you want to use to describe it, it doesn't matter.
You weren;t consistent with Pettite and any other PED user. They did the same thing. If you are going to give doubt for Pettite like you did, then do the same for the other guys...especially guys who never even had it proven that they did it
Your stance you just explained about not knowing if a guy did or didn't do it is what I am talking about. With that reasoning, it is very faulty to be penalize some guys while letting the other guys basically get off scott free. You say you don't know for sure, but yet you give a definitive ruling on whether a guy should be penalized or not. >>
You assume it is because it has to do with a Yankee hero. I stated my reasons, none of which have to do with him being a Yankee. Has my ARod bashing (from pretty much day 1), not shown enough of my willingness to not be biased? Once again, if you're asking me to decide, I'm good with keeping him out, even if he were deserving. What about that is confusing for you? I never "explained away" anything. I listed the mitigating circumstances that differentiated his situation. He DIDN"T do the "same". He never denied use. His use, if you believe him, was very limited. And it wasn't for performance enhancing reasons.
The guys I am letting off "scott free", once again, don't have any evidence of their use. What about that is so difficult for you to understand?
Your stance you just explained about assuming everyone did it is what I am talking about. With that reasoning, it is very faulty to punish guys who DIDN"T use. Perhaps we should just let everyone into the Hall of Fame if they aren't know to have use under the guise that they surely would have put up the numbers if they did. >>
The whole situation is so impossible to figure who did or didn't use...and that is what I proposed before; they are all part of the steroid generation, vote them based on how they did against their peers just like any other era, whether they used or not.
Just look at all that back and forth that we had that went nowhere. It is a clusterphuck in trying to separate the users from non users. The players union and baseball management never cared about the use.
<< <i>
<< <i>The whole situation is so impossible to figure who did or didn't use...and that is what I proposed before; they are all part of the steroid generation, vote them based on how they did against their peers just like any other era, whether they used or not.
Just look at all that back and forth that we had that went nowhere. It is a clusterphuck in trying to separate the users from non users. The players union and baseball management never cared about the use. >>
I wholehearted agree that it's a total mess and frustrating for everyone, especially fans. But you and I will have to agree to disagree on the solution, although I realize that a few, or several, users will slip through the crack under my philosophy. However, I'd rather that happen than for all of us as a fan base, and society, to say that we will proactively reward CHEATERS. That's something I'll never be able to get my head around. >>
Those are good sentiments.
<< <i>I enjoyed the back and forth... >>
Me too....always a good time.
They saw sketchy things in real time, turned the other way, and now are the judge, jury, and executioner.
Effing hypocrites can go choke on donkey balls.
Palmeiro won the SEC triple crown - the first guy to ever do it - and is in the College Baseball Hall of Fame. The idea that he wasn't a top prospect coming out of college is laughable.
Tabe
<< <i>It could be a lonely ceremony this year. >>
Great-great-grandchildren giving speeches about the great-great-grandfathers (Veterans Committee inductees) they never met. Fun stuff.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>I am beyond sick and tired of the 'elite' media painting themselves as holier than thou.
They saw sketchy things in real time, turned the other way, and now are the judge, jury, and executioner.
Effing hypocrites can go choke on donkey balls.
Well said. The media did see things and turned a blind eye. The biggest culprit here is the MLBPA who is Queen Bee of Scumbags. Fighting tooth and nail against drug testing for so long. I've always wondered why fans haven't displayed open disdain for the MLBPA more openly. The union is an enemy of the game, IMO.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i> the "media" is a completely fragmented group of individuals, >>
Yup. "Game of Shadows" was written by some members of the media, and that pretty much launched the investigation that churned out "the Mitchell Report."
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
"Could mean something, could mean nothing, but BBWAA official who knows Hall vote has scheduled "up to three" conf calls w/ potential winners"
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
Working on the following: 1970 Baseball PSA, 1970-1976 Raw, World Series Subsets PSA, 1969 Expansion Teams PSA, Fleer World Series Sets, Texas Rangers Topps Run 1972-1989
----------------------
Successful deals to date: thedudeabides,gameusedhoop,golfcollector,tigerdean,treetop,bkritz, CapeMOGuy,WeekendHacker,jeff8877,backbidder,Salinas,milbroco,bbuckner22,VitoCo1972,ddfamf,gemint,K,fatty macs,waltersobchak,dboneesq
<< <i>I guess most importantly, blaming the media, or the owners, or trainers or whatever seems like a completely unnecessary reach to try and protect the cheaters, who ultimately and knowingly decided for themselves that they were going to cheat >>
I'm not blaming anyone for the widespread steroid abuse nor am I attempting to protect cheaters. My point is 99% of the BBWAA turned the other way and wrote headlines praising their accomplishments when these guys played.
Those same writers today?
"I had no clue back then! But wait, notice the lopsided stats and body transformations?!?! She's a witch!! Burn her!!!"
Shorter: Don't judge me for being irresponsible with journalistic standards but I am the unquestionable judge and jury to those I make a living off of.
Like I said, hope those effin hypocrites choke on donkey balls.
If "Integrity, character, and sportsmanship" were of such importance, then they should be using those as criteria to let players in who have exhibited high levels of such! Yet, nobody gets elected based primarily on character... but they do get eliminated based primarily on character.
To me, the inclusion of "Integrity, character, and sportsmanship" as HOF criteria is a joke...because it is only used on the bad end, and not judiciously either! Ty Cobb's integrity, character, and sportsmanship are far worse than Mark McGwire's! I would rather have my son display what McGwire did wrong, much more than I would what TY cobb did wrong.
Yet again, people will dismiss Cobb's as 'part of the era'...but when looked at what he really was about...being a jack arse douchebag isn't part of any era.
<< <i>Ty Cobb's integrity, character, and sportsmanship are far worse than Mark McGwire's! I would rather have my son display what McGwire did wrong, much more than I would what TY cobb did wrong. >>
Ty Cobb got elected in 1936. His antics were not seen in the same way to those in that era as they do to us in this era.
I guess it's like stats, as time progresses, stats mean more or less. Kinda silly, but since Hall of Fame election is based on voting and opinion and not any sort of metric or stat, we're always going to have this mess.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>Petty, vindictive writers are ruining this whole process. It's time to change who votes for the HOF. Their holier than thou attitude infuriates me to no end. >>
Who gets to vote of you kick the Writers out?
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
Just off the top of my head... how about 33% former players and coaches/33% current players and coaches/ and 33% baseball writers. That would take away some but not all of the writer influence.
Which writer voted for Aaron Sele? Why? And will said writer get to vote next year???
Forget blocking him; find out where he lives and go punch him in the nuts. --WalterSobchak 9/12/12
Looking for Al Hrabosky and any OPC Dave Campbells (the ESPN guy)
<< <i>Which writer voted for Aaron Sele? Why? And will said writer get to vote next year??? >>
Writers will often throw a vote away as a token of appreciation for some guy who doesn't have a shot.
Considering that this ballot was a rage against the Steroid Era, I'm surprised that there as many "zero vote" guys as there are.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>If they KNEW, then yes, you could accuse them of that but you’d have to show me who knew and how. Even if a writer here or there did know, it certainly wasn’t widespread knowledge by any means unless you want to accuse them of mass conspiracy, which once again, I don’t see any motivation for whatsoever. >>
I am obviously a Houston Homer, so took this vote more personally than in years past. I'm also a tad under the weather, so combining those two, probably more irrational than usual.
One of the writers of Clemens' "tell-all" book recently said (paraphrased): I, along with *many* other writers, know more than we've ever disclosed and saw things in the day that would absolutely blow your mind. Problem is, it was all off the record, so we can't say anything or else we'll lose all credibility with athletes going forward.
I've been looking for the clip and cannot recall if it was on TV, radio, twitter, etc but that's what he pretty much said. Part of me respects the journalistic code of ethics but when abuse is *so* widespread, they became enablers and part of the problem rather than maintaining journalistic standards.
On the other hand, there are guys like Richard Justice who decided this era was on an equal playing field and judged players with their peers. He's admitted to being sloppy and should have known, but will not hold that against today's players.
Having said all that, I still stand by my witch hunt statements. When there is zero physical evidence a player (ie Biggio) used steroids, yet he is held to the so-called standard of known cheats, it is a witch hunt in my opinion.
<< <i>
<< <i>Ty Cobb's integrity, character, and sportsmanship are far worse than Mark McGwire's! I would rather have my son display what McGwire did wrong, much more than I would what TY cobb did wrong. >>
Ty Cobb got elected in 1936. His antics were not seen in the same way to those in that era as they do to us in this era.
I guess it's like stats, as time progresses, stats mean more or less. Kinda silly, but since Hall of Fame election is based on voting and opinion and not any sort of metric or stat, we're always going to have this mess. >>
Douchebaggery is douchebaggery no matter which era it is in. His character was severely poor, and I'm not just talking about his racist views...his on field character was bad too(by any era's standards). His character is far worse than any of the PED guys(except for probably Sheffield), era doesn't change that.
Also, Cobb's plaque currently sits in the most prominent spot in the Hall of Fame(displayed front and center among the five original members who's plaques have a special display place). Surely the HOF now at least knows of his antics, don't you think??? Why would they promote such a jerk like that? So, in using the logic you guys did, when I take my kid there, they are promoting that being a dirtbag is ok. Sorry guys, you are wrong.
As for the Aaron Sele debacle, sorry Baseball, but your argument in favor of that is weak. The ballot is NOT a very long list, so it wouldn't be hard for any fan to look at each player on the ballot and say "hey, I remember that guy(and in Sele's case)...he wasn't very good either." A vote for him is not needed to accomplish that!
The voter is either severely ignorant on baseball or he is not taking the voting process seriously. The voters have already shown themselves to be ignorant of baseball evaluation, when they do votes for guys like Sele, it just cements their ignorance even more.
<< <i>or he is not taking the voting process seriously. >>
DING!
This is why I respect, though not necessarily agree with, the NFL HOF selection process.
http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/SelectionProcessFAQ.aspx
The process can be snooty and hypocritical but, at least they're consistent and every vote is 100% legit.
Any BBWAA voter that knew, heard, and/or assumed players were juicing, yet didn't say a peep, should forfeit their ballot until players decide when they may be eligible to vote again.
<< <i>“(Wednesday) was a great day,” he said. “We didn’t get in, but we got pretty close. So we’re honored to be in the position that we’re in.”
Biggio often employed “we” Thursday when discussing himself and the Hall. He’s often said entering Cooperstown would mean much more to the Astros, the team’s fans, the city of Houston and his family than it ever could to him. After devoting 22 combined major and minor league years to the Astros and now serving as a special advisor to general manager Jeff Luhnow, Biggio still wears the star with pride.
“I don’t think ‘I’ is in my dialogue,” Biggio said. “It was always we and us and the team.” >>
<< <i>Stown,
For the record, I don't think Biggio was punished for PEDs, and if so, very very little. I think it's just a first ballot issue. He might not get in next year with the new potential inductees but he will get in and soon. I have a great deal of respect for him but he's not first tier Hall of Fame material so it doesn't surprise me or bother me that he didn't get voted in just yet. >>
Totally agree with you. Biggio is not a slam-dunk first-ballot choice, so I'm not too upset he didn't get in this year, he won't have long to wait.
Don't think PED issue hurt him, either. I don't recall reading any sports writer during the past few months give anything but praise for Biggio.
<< <i>It's practically akin to saying that if I murder someone, I should not be held responsible because the police didn't have someone tracking me to make sure I didn't commit murder. Where in all of this do you feel that a good amount, if not pretty much the entire amount, of responsibility for misdeeds lies with the individual that committed them? >>
As a reminder, I'm obviously biased and took this year's selection process more personally but that comparison seems to be quite a stretch.
Don't 'ya think?
If the BBWAA believes Biggio is HOF material, but not worthy of a first round entry, then so be it. I think someone is worthy or not and to exclude someone for a year or two, just because they can, highlights the problems with their non-transparent voting process.
A perfect example comes from the NFL's selection of Michael Irvin. While his stats assured him a first ballot induction, his peers disapproved of his off the field antics (ie showing up to court in a pink fur coat and pretty much telling everyone to go eff themselves). It was a humbling moment for Michael and to his credit, completely transformed his image in a positive light. Again, I don't necessarily agree with the NFL HOF selection process but I do respect their consistency and transparency.
<< <i>Once again, are you of the opinion that players bear no responsibility? >>
Sorry but I didn't realize that's what you were getting at.
I'm a firm believer of personal responsibility. The guys that got busted (A-Rod, Bonds, Palmero, etc) or admitted (Pettitte, Mac, etc) to cheating should be dealt with accordingly. Problem is, how do you do that retroactively? And how does one define cheating? Obviously, there are different forms of cheating and there are numerous HOFers that have in one way or another at some point in their career.
Gaylord used vasoline, Reggie did blow, and Cobb stole signs.
These are all forms of cheating but using your no shades of grey and must be an absolute approach, the BBWAA did *not* do a fantastic job. They failed. Miserably.
Rather than potentially opening Pandora's box of speculation as to who may or may not have CHEATED, make it explicitly clear going forward (similar to gambling). If you get busted with PEDs, you become ineligible for any awards and will be excluded from HOF ballots. Sure, it doesn't solve any previous steroid issues but it does give guidelines to future players.
edited for some redundancy.
<< <i>stown,
I'm not sure if you've been reading this thread or not based on your comments. I've clearly stated that cheating is not a black and white issue where I compared steroids to a nuclear bomb and everything else (scuffing, etc.) to various forms of rifles and hand grenades. I have no problems differentiating and clearly segregating steroid users from the rest of the lot. I think their performance clearly warrants that. Steroids fundamentally affects the individuals talent level, unlike corking, scuffing, greenies, etc. All of those things may or may not aid the player but they are just tools at the end of the day. Steroids is making yourself into a different player altogether.
Even if you wanted to say that all cheating is the same (which I vehemently disagree with), to say that others have cheated and are in so we should let these cheaters in is a horrible argument IMO. And why should we stop future users from admittance if we're going to let this lot in. That makes no sense to me.
Ultimately, all you are saying is that you are comfortable rewarding cheaters with the absolute highest honor that can be bestowed. You ask how you deal with cheaters retroactively??? I don't get that. You deal with them by not putting them in the Hall of Fame. >>
Dude, I haven't said nor implied we should reward cheaters. I've been focused on Biggio and the BBWWA's double standard (since you took issue with me calling them hypocrites). If you think my defending Biggio is actually somehow rewarding cheaters, well, so be it. The only reason I brought up Perry, Bonds, etc in my last comment was due to your random question about players' responsibility.
No, I have not read the entire thread and it appears you're taking other arguments and projecting them onto me. Rather than go round and round with strawmans, I'd rather sit it out because it seems you're just itching to argue.
Have a great weekend.