Baseball Hall of Fame

[GoMuskies]

Ten years ago, who would have predicted that a Hall of Fame balloting cycle would go by where all of the following were eligible and none of them made the cut:

Mark McGwire
Barry Bonds
Sammy Sosa
Roger Clemens
Curt Schilling

It's like a who's who of the generation of players I grew up watching. Crazy.

[XU 87]

The first 4 are for obvious steroid reasons. But it's still pretty crazy when the all-time HR leader, a 500 hr guy, a 600 hr guy, and a 354 game winner don't make the HOF. But other than Bonds, would these guys be getting any serious HOF consideration without steroids? Clemens was pretty damn good at the start of his career (and for a number of years) but his career seemed to be coming to an end until he went Toronto and used (allegedly) steroids. I'm not sure when McGwire started using steroids but since he played with Conseco, I assume pretty early on.

As for Schilling, looking at his stats, he only won 216 games lifetime, and losts of years under 10 wins. I'd like to hear some Sabremetrics on Schilling.

I see Piazza didn't get in due to steroid allegations.

But I see Jeff Bagwell got a bunch of votes. After seeing how small he was about a year after he retired, that made me wonder.

[Juice]

The first 4 are for obvious steroid reasons. But it's still pretty crazy when the all-time HR leader, a 500 hr guy, a 600 hr guy, and a 354 game winner don't make the HOF. But other than Bonds, would these guys be getting any serious HOF consideration without steroids? Clemens was pretty damn good at the start of his career (and for a number of years) but his career seemed to be coming to an end until he went Toronto and used (allegedly) steroids. I'm not sure when McGwire started using steroids but since he played with Conseco, I assume pretty early on.

As for Schilling, looking at his stats, he only won 216 games lifetime, and losts of years under 10 wins. I'd like ot hear some Sabremetrics on Schilling.

Well using wins as a stat for the HOF is not a good start. It's what gives Jack Morris a legitimate chance to get it, although he did not get in today. Schilling is very much borderline.

[DC Muskie]

Piazza is writing a book that should come out next year. I'm pretty sure writers are waiting on what they see.

[Masterofreality]

The only players who will get in the Baseball HOF via the Veterans Committee are........dead.

It's a good thing that drugs don't keep people out of every Hall of Fame. Ozzy Osbourne, Ginger Baker and Jimi Hendrix would be forgotten.

[Porkopolis]

What, so greenies are ok but steroids aren't? The voters had no problem with an entire generation of ball players popping amphetamines and painkillers like they were candy but are ready to come down on the juicers.

[Juice]

What, so greenies are ok but steroids aren't? The voters had no problem with an entire generation of ball players popping amphetamines and painkillers like they were candy but are ready to come down on the juicers.

And they weren't men enough to write about during the 90s and early 2000s but now think there is enough to keep these guys out. They're all chickenshit morons. How Piazza didn't get in is absolute crime. The person to blame for that is probably Murray Chass, who hates blogs but has his own internet site where he writes things but doesn't think is a blog. What an old retard.

[Porkopolis]

The person to blame for that is probably Murray Chass, who hates blogs but has his own internet site where he writes things but doesn't think is a blog. What an old retard.

If you want to make your head hurt, read his book The Beauty of Short Hops. He manages to rail against sabermetrics and how statistical analysis is ruining the game, all the while demonstrating that he understands neither sabermetrics nor the proper application of statistical analysis.

Edit: My mistake, Mr. Chass did not write the book; he simply endorsed it. The book beautifully sums up his school of thought, though.

[DC Muskie]

What, so greenies are ok but steroids aren't? The voters had no problem with an entire generation of ball players popping amphetamines and painkillers like they were candy but are ready to come down on the juicers.

Amphetamines and painkillers are not the same as steroids.

[XU 87]

I think there's a huge difference between greenies and steroids. I don't think greenies could turn a .250 hitter with little power into a .300 hitter who could hit 50 hr's a year.

[DC Muskie]

How Piazza didn't get in is absolute crime.

This sentence here is the prime reason why I hate the concept of Hall of Fame in sports in general.

No crime was committed because today Piazza didn't get his head enshrined and placed into some building. It's like arguing over who got picked for the All Star games. I hated reading Bert Blyeleven bitch about not being in the Hall of Fame. Jesus dude, get over yourself.

Piazza is certainly worthy of praise and having his career remembered. But not being chosen today is no crime. Literally or figuratively.

[Masterofreality]

Amphetamines and painkillers are not the same as steroids.


I think there's a huge difference between greenies and steroids. I don't think greenies could turn a .250 hitter with little power into a .300 hitter who could hit 50 hr's a year.

These. Period.

[XU 87]

How Piazza didn't get in is absolute crime.

Based on his stats, yes. But I think he's got the steroid stigma hanging over his head.

[Juice]

Based on his stats, yes. But I think he's got the steroid stigma hanging over his head.

What's the stigma from? Because Murray Chass once saw him with some back acne? There is literally nothing else to connect him with steroids.

[XU 87]

What's the stigma from? Because Murray Chass once saw him with some back acne? There is literally nothing else to connect him with steroids.

There's more than that. Google "Mike Piazza steroids" and you'll see a few things. Two players said he used steroids, although one player did so anonymously. But this anonymous player said he played against Piazza in the minors and majors and that it was well known amongst the players that Piazza took steroids. In the minors, Piazza was initially a weak hitting catcher, but then one year he got very big and his stats also got very big. If you check his minor league stats, Piazza was a weak hitter his first two years in the minors and then his third year he became a power hitter.

In addition, one writer in a book says Piazza once admitted to a "trusted" writer that he used steroids.

Piazza has also publicly admitted to using Andostenedione, which is the same stuff that McGwire had in his locker, although I think that was an OTC at the time. But I think it's still a steroid.

There's also a report that he put on about 20lbs of muscle in the winter of '98.

The acne stuff, in and of itself, isnt much. But the story I read is that he had terrible back acne for years and then it went away around the time baseball began drug testing. But the acne story is just one more piece of the puzzle. If you put this all together, there's a fair amount of evidence that he did steroids.

[SixFig]

Fernando Vina and Neifi Perez were on the Mitchell Report. Home runs don't make you guilty. You must judge an entire era based on context.

Whitey Ford cut baseballs with his wedding ring to give him more movement. Gaylord Perry spitballed and Vaselined and whatever. Bobby Thompson hit his the "shot heard round the world" after he received stolen pitch signals from the outfield. those things are considered "charming" and "quaint" but are certainly a violation of the morals and ethics of baseball (if such ever existed)

Plus PED's weren't even illegal at the time. You can't punish 50 years olds who drank when they were 18 (when it was legal to do so) now that the drinking age has been upped to 21.

I'm not saying doing steroids or cheating in any form is right. IT IS NOT. The real losers are the ones who played baseball on the straight and narrow. But we don't know who they are.

End rant...



P.S. Those same writers knew in 2004 when Bonds won MVP and Clemens the Cy Young...and they still voted them those awards. Hypocrites to the max

[chico]

Just because steroids were not banned by baseball does not make them legal. And there is a difference between them and geenies. Nobody ever built 30 pounds of muscle or came back from an injury quicker because they took greenies.

What I'll never understand is how a guy can not be HOF material one year and suddenly is the next. Biggio most certainly is a HOF'er but some writers hold getting in on the first ballot as some sacred cow. Writers are just lazy and really don't do any research unless it's put right in front of them.

Bagwell and Raines also deserve to be in. I don't know about Schilling. I think the thing with him is that he was such a big game pitcher. His postseason ERA is spectacular - he and Johnson won the series for the Dbacks. The bloody sock game is legendary, but I wonder if it would get the significance it has if he was say, a Ranger or Padre and had done it.

As much as it pains me to say this, Bonds' and Clemens' pre-steroid careers (if you assume Clemens started in 97 with Toronto and Bonds in 1999) are both worthy of the HOF. Clemens had won close to 200 games and 3 Cy Young awards. Bonds had won 3 MVP's and was considered one of the best players in the game. I can't stand either one but they probably should be in.

[paulxu]

Pete!

[SixFig]

How do you know Bagwell, Biggio, Schilling and Raines didn't do roids? Just because they weren't on the Mitchell report or Canseco's book?

They all need to be in or none.

I especially laugh at Mike Piazza. He was a 62nd round draft pick. They don't even have 62 rounds anymore! Yet he becomes arguably the best hitting catcher ever? Yet he is beyond steroid suspicion.

Everyone needs to get in. They were the greatest players of their era. The steroid era.

Guarantee there are current HOFers who did roids. Rickey Henderson (teammate of Canseco and McGwire) comes to mind.

[chico]

I'm also sure there are pitchers who threw spitters or cut the ball who we don't know about. There are likely players who bet on the game who are in as well. The thing is, we do know about certain guys. And if we do know, then why should that not be held against them simply because we don't know about everyone? That's the peril of cheating - sometimes, if you're not good at it you get caught (see, Tony Yates). Even if you are good at it you get caught (see, Bob Huggins).

[DC Muskie]

They all need to be in or none.

You can't be serious. Can't be. You also can't accuse everyone simply because there are players who were actually caught or have serious cluds over them. You can't simply say Ricky Henderson probably did roids, simply because you think he did.

That's an incredible reach in logic.

Nothing compares to roids. Nothing. Not spitball or Vaseline or anything else you come up with. You had guys who took this stuff and went through the through in terms of ability. Cutting a ball with your wedding ring is not to same. To suggest that all crimes are equal and therefore punishment is equal is also another reach in logic.

Come on guys. This is steroids. Comparing it to spitballs is absolutely insulting to spitballs.

[SixFig]

Nothing compares to roids. Nothing. Not spitball or Vaseline or anything else you come up with. You had guys who took this stuff and went through the through in terms of ability. Cutting a ball with your wedding ring is not to same. To suggest that all crimes are equal and therefore punishment is equal is also another reach in logic.

Come on guys. This is steroids. Comparing it to spitballs is absolutely insulting to spitballs.

How so? Cheating is cheating right? Spitballs, doctoring bats/balls, stealing signs etc. is still trying to gain a competitive advantage.

If, not when, we find out a current HOFer took roids, what are we gonna do, take them out?

[RealDeal]

The statistics, of course, further indict Boone. For most of his career, he had been a solid second baseman with decent pop. From 1992 to 2000, his average season was, well, average—.255, with 19 home runs and 81 RBIs. If genetics predicted baseball performance, it fell right in line with the average season of his grandfather, Ray, and brother, Aaron. Ray Boone, over the course of his 13-year career, averaged a .275-18-87 line, and Aaron came in at .263-18-78 while playing for six different ball clubs.
But then, in 2001, as the new 32-year-old second baseman on the Mariners’ record-setting 116-win team, Boone became arguably their biggest offensive threat. Call it the year of the (enhanced) middle infielder—like Rich Aurilia, who suddenly slugged 37 home runs as the San Francisco Giants’ shortstop, Boone mashed 37 bombs (playing home games in Safeco Field’s spacious confines), with a whopping 141 RBIs, all while hitting a robust .331.

Read more at http://goodmenproject.com/sports-2/all-steroids-team-bret-boone/#K2KS3kj9iyu1ZEea.99

Steroids > spitballs

[DC Muskie]

How so? Cheating is cheating right? Spitballs, doctoring bats/balls, stealing signs etc. is still trying to gain a competitive advantage.

If, not when, we find out a current HOFer took roids, what are we gonna do, take them out?

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Not all "cheating" is created equal. Sammy Sosa is not getting into the Hall because he corked his bat a couple of times. He's not getting in because he turned himself into some cyborg.

And you can certainly remove people from the hall. It's not a a place where you can never ever be removed.

If you don't take a stand, then what exactly is the point of making rules?

Steroids were and are illegal. Everyone knew this. They created a HUGE competitive advantage. To suggest it's the same as a freaking spitball is a really, really juvenile argument.

Basically what you are telling kids is, "Go ahead and cheat at the most deceitful manner to gain an advantage, because Gaylord Perry threw a spitball a couple of times and therefore Barry Bonds should be in."

Come on you can see the idiocy of such a stance?

[X-band '01]

Whoever voted Aaron Sele on their ballot should be subject to a drug-test.

http://bbwaa.com/

[vee4xu]

How Jack Morris is not in the HOF is beyond me. He currently has Don Sutton and Bert Blyleven disease. Morris was a great pitcher for the Tigers and Minnesota. Won a WS with both teams.

[XU 87]

I just read an article called "The top 25 suspected (or acknowleged) steroid users". It seems as though every really good player in the 90's used steroids.

[X-band '01]

How so? Cheating is cheating right? Spitballs, doctoring bats/balls, stealing signs etc. is still trying to gain a competitive advantage.

If, not when, we find out a current HOFer took roids, what are we gonna do, take them out?

If someone does steal signs during a game, they're more likely to get a pitch in their ear at their next at-bat. You can't use that same type of gamesmanship when it comes to steroids.

[XU 87]

As much as it pains me to say this, Bonds' and Clemens' pre-steroid careers (if you assume Clemens started in 97 with Toronto and Bonds in 1999) are both worthy of the HOF. Clemens had won close to 200 games and 3 Cy Young awards. Bonds had won 3 MVP's and was considered one of the best players in the game. I can't stand either one but they probably should be in.

Your reasoning probably explains why those 2 got about 37% of the vote while Sosa only got 12% of the vote. Sosa's entire career was a result of steroids.

[SixFig]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Not all "cheating" is created equal. Sammy Sosa is not getting into the Hall because he corked his bat a couple of times. He's not getting in because he turned himself into some cyborg.

And you can certainly remove people from the hall. It's not a a place where you can never ever be removed.

If you don't take a stand, then what exactly is the point of making rules?

Steroids were and are illegal. Everyone knew this. They created a HUGE competitive advantage. To suggest it's the same as a freaking spitball is a really, really juvenile argument.

Basically what you are telling kids is, "Go ahead and cheat at the most deceitful manner to gain an advantage, because Gaylord Perry threw a spitball a couple of times and therefore Barry Bonds should be in."

Come on you can see the idiocy of such a stance?

I'm telling kids don't cheat no matter what.

If I was taking the bar exam, and I cheated by using a secret piece of paper or by using an advanced headset where someone was wiring me answers, it is still cheating. You can't take a greater moral stand based on method of the crime.

MLB did not take a stand at the time, but they cannot go back in time and convict a certain few. They need to take their lumps and acknowledge the history and admit that era as a whole was tainted.

An American history museum that doesn't acknowledge the atrocities committed to the Native Americans would not be a true museum. Let's go take out all reference to wrongdoing and pretend everything was sunshine and gumdrops! Same with the Hall of Fame. Move on and face the music!

[DC Muskie]

I'm telling kids don't cheat no matter what.

How are you doing that exactly?

I hope you aren't a lawyer because your logic is no one should go to jail because Gaylord Perry threw a spitball once.

Phil Niekro was caught with a nail file once. I guess that means Barry Bonds should get in because he used cream to hit a billion home runs.

Your argument is utterly ridiculous. I'm not even sure you know what you are trying to say with your museum analogy. It's that bad.

Also your argument is Craig Biggio should never get in because he played at the same time with Barry Bonds is to put it nicely, insane. I should assume you are a mass murderer as well, because how can you prove that you aren't when mass murders are out and about? And since you have probably sped at one time, you too should be confined to a cell for the rest of your life.

Lesson learned kids!

[vee4xu]

I heard someone on the radio ask, what if someone from the steroid era not suspected of taking steroids gets in and then in a tell-all book admits doing so? Interesting situation.

[Xman95]

What, so greenies are ok but steroids aren't? The voters had no problem with an entire generation of ball players popping amphetamines and painkillers like they were candy but are ready to come down on the juicers.


And they weren't men enough to write about during the 90s and early 2000s but now think there is enough to keep these guys out. They're all chickenshit morons. How Piazza didn't get in is absolute crime. The person to blame for that is probably Murray Chass, who hates blogs but has his own internet site where he writes things but doesn't think is a blog. What an old retard.

Kudos to both of you. Baseball writers (and often sports writers in general) are an insanely hipocritical. For those writers that were in locker rooms all the time, there's no way they didn't know about steroid use. Hell, in '98 anybody tuned in to the HR race knew McGwire and Sosa were juicing. But the writers didn't care. All they were interested in was the fact that these guys were giving them a great product and interesting stories.

Then, when it became the popular thing to be anti-steroids, the writers jumped onto their soapboxes and ripped all those associated with juicing, including many that were just associated through speculation. Those writers should be ashamed and they are absolute jokes. As are those at the top of the MLB food chain, like Bud Selig (the worst commissioner in the history of sports...although Gary Bettman sure is trying to take that title away!). They knew what was going on but they also realized steroids may have injected life back into baseball.

By the way, are we so naive to think that there's no chance the players in the 70's and 80's could have also been using steroids and other PEDs? Are we so naive to think that an East German Women's Swim Team was doped up in the mid-70's but there's no way professional athletes could have accessed that type of substance? Well, I guess it's unlikely that any pro baseball player would have put foreign chemicals into their bodies back in those days anyway, right? Just ask Dave Parker, Dale Berra, Lee Mazzilli, Keith Hernandez, Tim Raines, Doc Ellis... Nah, players back then would never do something silly like that.

For those interested, here's an article focusing on the claim's of former pitcher Tom House that players were using steroids in the 60's and '70's. (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2005-05-03-steroids-house_x.htm)

Of course, these are the same writers that inducted a guy like Kirby Puckett (no chance he ever did roids, right?!?) on the first ballot, while Don Mattingly struggles to get enough votes to stay on the eligible list. Not saying that Mattingly should have been a first ballot guy, but compare his numbers to Puckett and you'll find they were very, very similar. Add in that Mattingly is considered one of the best ever, if not THE best, defensively at first base. But because Puckett had glaucoma, got really fat and died, it somehow must have made him a better player. And for those that want to use Puckett's postseason performance to his benefit, check out Mattingly's only chance at the playoffs in 1995. He put up some good numbers too.

Back to the point, writers and those running baseball are hypocrites, plain and simple.

[SixFig]

How are you doing that exactly?

I hope you aren't a lawyer because your logic is no one should go to jail because Gaylord Perry threw a spitball once.

Phil Niekro was caught with a nail file once. I guess that means Barry Bonds should get in because he used cream to hit a billion home runs.

Your argument is utterly ridiculous. I'm not even sure you know what you are trying to say with your museum analogy. It's that bad.

Also your argument is Craig Biggio should never get in because he played at the same time with Barry Bonds is to put it nicely, insane. I should assume you are a mass murderer as well, because how can you prove that you aren't when mass murders are out and about? And since you have probably sped at one time, you too should be confined to a cell for the rest of your life.

Lesson learned kids!

You are telling kids its ok to cheat if you do it in a quaint, clever way (Gaylord Perry, Phil Niekro, Whitey Ford etc) its fine but if you cheat egregiously (Bonds, Clemens) its different. Really? Really?

There is NO difference. Cheating is cheating no matter how it was done or what was obtained.

What if, the day after his election to the HOF, we find pics of Biggio roiding up, DNA covered needles, and the missing evidence in the OJ case? Does that make him a different player? NO. You can only compare him to the players of his era, and he was a top player as were Bonds, Clemens etc.

All in or all out.

[Xman95]

Phil Niekro was caught with a nail file once.

Without getting into the moral issue of cheating, the Niekro situation brings me back to the hypocritical writers. They voted to put Niekro and Gaylord Perry into the Hall, despite knowing that both players cheated DURING games. We're not talking about doing something away from the field, but actually cheating during the games. Hell, Gaylord Perry had a book called "Me and the Spitter" that came out before he was voted in. Yet the writers now want us to believe that they have tapped into their inner-morality and "cheaters" shouldn't be allowed into the Hall of Fame. Hmmm.

[Juice]

How Jack Morris is not in the HOF is beyond me. He currently has Don Sutton and Bert Blyleven disease. Morris was a great pitcher for the Tigers and Minnesota. Won a WS with both teams.

Great pitcher? His career ERA was 3.90, that looks above average to me. His career ERA+ is 105, that is barely above average. The highest he ever finished in a CY Young voting was third. Jack Morris benefits from playing for good teams. He didn't pitch to the score. That is a stupid narrative passed along by stupid sports writers.

Here are several links on why Jack Morris was wildly overrated:

http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2012/12/a-jack-morris-post.html#more

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/01/04/hall-of-fame-2010-jack-morris/

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/19650/jack-morris-case-comes-down-to-one-game


Jack Morris: He is not a Hall of Famer. I’ve spilled a lot of virtual ink on this. Short version: Morris didn’t prevent the opposition from scoring runs at anything much greater than an average clip. He didn’t “pitch to the score” (or, if he tried to, he was not particularly successful at it), as so many well tell you when trying to explain away his pedestrian ERA. Apart from one game in the 1991 World Series, he was nothing special as a playoff pitcher. Despite his “best starter of the 80s” reputation, he was rarely thought of as special by Cy Young voters, who gave him the same number of Cy Young votes over his career as Mike Hampton and Dontrelle Willis. That title is a function of him putting his best ten year stretch together in a way that corresponded with the decade beginning and ending, not by being the best pitcher in the decade most of the time. He wasn’t. Just cut it out, OK?

[X-band '01]

Morris sure as hell wasn't overrated when he was in the postseason for the Tigers, Twins and Blue Jays. Ask the Braves if they think Morris ain't a HOF pitcher.

If a journeyman like Bert Blyleven can get in on his final ballot, I'd imagine Morris could as well next season.

[Juice]

Morris sure as hell wasn't overrated when he was in the postseason for the Tigers, Twins and Blue Jays. Ask the Braves if they think Morris ain't a HOF pitcher.

If a journeyman like Bert Blyleven can get in on his final ballot, I'd imagine Morris could as well next season.

He pitched a few good games in the post season. His post season numbers overall aren't even that good. Curt Schilling pitched some great games in the post season, had better numbers in the steroid era compared to Morris in a bad offensive era, and people somehow think Morris was a better pitcher.

[DC Muskie]

You are telling kids its ok to cheat if you do it in a quaint, clever way (Gaylord Perry, Phil Niekro, Whitey Ford etc) its fine but if you cheat egregiously (Bonds, Clemens) its different. Really? Really?

There is NO difference. Cheating is cheating no matter how it was done or what was obtained.

What if, the day after his election to the HOF, we find pics of Biggio roiding up, DNA covered needles, and the missing evidence in the OJ case? Does that make him a different player? NO. You can only compare him to the players of his era, and he was a top player as were Bonds, Clemens etc.

All in or all out.

What's with this idea that if after we elect Biggio we find out he was on roids? What point are you trying to prove? I completely baffled by it. It makes zero sense. There is absolutely no evidence that Biggio used steroids, yet you seem to think he does. Or that he could.

The fact... FACT being the most important word here, is that he didn't.

I'm sure this discussion can go no further because you simply can't grasp the concept that steroid use is completely different then throwing spitballs.

It's over your head. Gone, like a Barry Bonds juiced home run.

People who used steroids destroyed records. Gaylord Perry made you think he going to throw a spitball...

You know what forget it. It's pointless trying to get you to understand a very fundamental principle. You're not worth the time.


Without getting into the moral issue of cheating, the Niekro situation brings me back to the hypocritical writers. They voted to put Niekro and Gaylord Perry into the Hall, despite knowing that both players cheated DURING games. We're not talking about doing something away from the field, but actually cheating during the games. Hell, Gaylord Perry had a book called "Me and the Spitter" that came out before he was voted in. Yet the writers now want us to believe that they have tapped into their inner-morality and "cheaters" shouldn't be allowed into the Hall of Fame. Hmmm.

This is priceless. It's the writers fault that ball players cheated and they didn't do what exactly? Get them thrown in jail? Banned from baseball? So now the writers are the ones at fault?

You have to be kidding me.

I'm amazed that supposedly intelligent Xavier grads are incapable of seeing that steroids are different then using a nail file. I'm at a loss for words to write. Now instead of being pissed at the players who did cheat, we must indite the writers for allowing this to happen. Or not happen soon enough. Or not turning up the heat. Or whatever rationale you need to thrown onto the writers.

Speeding is breaking the law. So is killing someone. Same punishment in the minds of some here.

[DC Muskie]

Ask the Braves if they think Morris ain't a HOF pitcher.

I'm pretty sure they would have mixed feelings since they went 2-2 against him in the playoffs.

[_LH]

I am of the opinion that if a player is eligible for the HOF and has numbers that historically would put a player into the HOF, the writers should stop trying to re-write history and vote them into the HOF.

I really don't understand what the writers think they are accomplishing anyway. It is not like the can rewrite the record books or take money away from guys that got huge contracts by putting up numbers with the help of roids.

The actual HOF is what suffers when you they can't allow guys like Bonds into the HOF, when his name is all over the record books. It makes the HOF a joke.

As for comparing roids to greenies, many sports writers are citing the integrity portion of the voting process in keeping suspected or admitted roid users out of the HOF. In that regard, greenies are the same as roids. Both are banned and give an advantage to a player. The degree of advantage should not matter.

I am beginning to suspect that since print media is dying and many of the current sports writers are going the way of the dinosaur, that they are trying to keep themselves and their dying industry relevant by taking this hypocritical stand.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/hof13/story/_/id/8826383/what-mlb-hall-fame-be

[Xman95]

This is priceless. It's the writers fault that ball players cheated and they didn't do what exactly? Get them thrown in jail? Banned from baseball? So now the writers are the ones at fault?

You have to be kidding me.

You really just read what you want to, don't you? "I'm amazed that supposedly intelligent Xavier grads are incapable of seeing" that the writers want to condemn steroid users for cheating to gain an advantage over those that didn't use them, thus they don't vote them into the Hall. However, guys like Niekro and Perry cheated to gain an advantage over others that didn't cheat, yet the writers voted them in. Seems like pretty simple logic to follow.

As for your speeding/killing example, it's not the same because those are two completely different things. In the case of baseball writers, they're not condemning players because of the legal issues of steroids. They're doing it because of the belief that steroids gave a competitive advantage over those that didn't use them. The cheating that Niekro and Perry did also gave them a competitive advantage. The methods were different, though each ultimately gave a competitive edge.

[MHettel]

How Jack Morris is not in the HOF is beyond me. He currently has Don Sutton and Bert Blyleven disease. Morris was a great pitcher for the Tigers and Minnesota. Won a WS with both teams.

Morris will get in. The voters consider it just as important to put people in at the right time as the consider being in at all. A first Ballot Hall of Famer is considered "greater" than a guy that sneaks in his last year of eligibility. Not sure I totally agree with it, but I 'm not arguing against the existence of this reality.

Morris will get in.

[MHettel]

Of course, these are the same writers that inducted a guy like Kirby Puckett (no chance he ever did roids, right?!?) on the first ballot, while Don Mattingly struggles to get enough votes to stay on the eligible list. Not saying that Mattingly should have been a first ballot guy, but compare his numbers to Puckett and you'll find they were very, very similar. Add in that Mattingly is considered one of the best ever, if not THE best, defensively at first base. But because Puckett had glaucoma, got really fat and died, it somehow must have made him a better player. And for those that want to use Puckett's postseason performance to his benefit, check out Mattingly's only chance at the playoffs in 1995. He put up some good numbers too.

Back to the point, writers and those running baseball are hypocrites, plain and simple.

Pucket is an interesting case. Short career, but big numbers when he played. Gold Glove at a key position, and 2 WS rings. Under a blind analysis, it's very hard to see Pucket in the Hall. Biggio gets in well before Pucket in my view, so clearly Kirby's affable personality resulted in some votes.

I view Barry larkin to be somewhat similar. A very good player, one of the best at his position while he played.....but just didnt play long enough and avoid enough injuries to amass the kind of eye-popping numbers that guarantee entry. But he got in anyway. To me he kind of sets the lower bar for teh overall resume. I think a guy like Edgar Martinez is also similar to these 2, expect he never won anything and playing DH has got to hurt him since he never contributed anything definsively.I dont think Edgar gets in, but if he does it will be in his very last year of eligibility.... Tim Raines falls in this group too, and I think he'll never get in.

[MHettel]

Imagine if neither Bonds nor Clemens did Roids. They certainly dont amass the crazy career numbers, but both of those guys hang around the game long enough to guarantee entry, right? I mean in a league where nearly everyone was doing steriods, they stood out. So in a league where nobody does steriods they would also stand out. So they set the bar as the 2 best players involved.

But others, like McGwire and Palmeiro were also standout players in the era and would stand out no matter what era they played in. Those guys, under clean circumstanes, would have played their way in as well.

So, the writers took a stand, but they still have some moves to make. If Bonds and Clemens are the 2 "best" players among the "steriod excluded" group, then in my mind, the Writers need to make those 2 guys the first 2 guys in the Hall if they ever get in at all. Their entry will kind of signal that the writers have "lifted" their sanctions against the players. In an ideal world, the writers simply vote them in during their very last year, which sends a very strong signal considering both these guys have amassed some of the best numbers ever which would indicate first ballot. So the cost of doing steriods is simply having to sit out of the Hall for 14 years.

But if they wait for the last year, then guys like Palmeiro and McGwire are already ineligible. And if Bonds and Clemens get in, then Palmeiro and McGwire should be in too, right? How will this play out? McGwire should be the first guy who has truly HOF numbers and career highlights whose eligibility would run out. Do they vote him in his last year and set the stage for that becoming prescedent on how they handle this?

[chico]

I don't think Morris makes it. He still has a lot of ground to make up and next year is his last. Guys like Maddux and Glavine are on the ballot next year, as well as Frank Thomas. I doubt the floodgates will open and Morris will be on the short list with so many others who had better careers.

As for Larkin, you are completely uninformed on his career and where his stats stand against other shortstops. I have a feeling you're just saying that to get under the skin of Reds fans, but with some of the other "theories" you've had, maybe not.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/cliff_corcoran/07/20/barry-larkin-hall-of-fame-shortstops/index.html

[Juice]

Pucket is an interesting case. Short career, but big numbers when he played. Gold Glove at a key position, and 2 WS rings. Under a blind analysis, it's very hard to see Pucket in the Hall. Biggio gets in well before Pucket in my view, so clearly Kirby's affable personality resulted in some votes.

I view Barry larkin to be somewhat similar. A very good player, one of the best at his position while he played.....but just didnt play long enough and avoid enough injuries to amass the kind of eye-popping numbers that guarantee entry. But he got in anyway. To me he kind of sets the lower bar for teh overall resume. I think a guy like Edgar Martinez is also similar to these 2, expect he never won anything and playing DH has got to hurt him since he never contributed anything definsively.I dont think Edgar gets in, but if he does it will be in his very last year of eligibility.... Tim Raines falls in this group too, and I think he'll never get in.

Tim Raines is the 2nd greatest lead off hitter ever, and should already have been in.

[XU 87]

Tim Raines is the 2nd greatest lead off hitter ever, and should already have been in.

You think Raines was a better leadoff hitter than Henderson? (since everyone knows that Peter Edward Rose is the greatest leadoff hitter of all time).

[MHettel]

I don't think Morris makes it. He still has a lot of ground to make up and next year is his last. Guys like Maddux and Glavine are on the ballot next year, as well as Frank Thomas. I doubt the floodgates will open and Morris will be on the short list with so many others who had better careers.

As for Larkin, you are completely uninformed on his career and where his stats stand against other shortstops. I have a feeling you're just saying that to get under the skin of Reds fans, but with some of the other "theories" you've had, maybe not.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/cliff_corcoran/07/20/barry-larkin-hall-of-fame-shortstops/index.html

I'm not completey uninformed about Larkins career. He was a very good player. A 3 hole type hitter with speed and a very good glove. Absolutely one of the best players at his position during his career, and among the best at his position all time. Those are his strengths. His numbers, however dont really stack up. His 2340 hit total ranks him 131st all time. His 198 HRs rank him 312th. Ranks 110 in runs scored, and his RBI total put him at 312 as well. His solid .295 career average ties him for 290th all time. His stole base total of 379 results in a ranking of 89....

the numbers just dont get there.

But, he was a shortstop, and that matters. When you compare his numbers to the typical production of what would historically be a group of light hitting shortstops, he certainly stands out. He could be considered one of the first in the current breed of Shortstops who were offensive threats as well. So the trick becomes exactly how much do you "punish" him for the less than stellar career numbers and how much do you "reward" him for playing a position that historically has been played by much lesser offensive players. If he's a 3rd baseman, he's already off the ballot for not getting enough votes to remain eligible.

Compare Larkin: 2180 games, 1329 runs, 2340 hits, 715 extra base hits, 960 rbis, 379 stolen bases and .295 average

To Biggio: 2850 games, 1844 runs, 3060 hits, 1014 extra base hits, 1175 RBIs, 414 stolen bases, .281 average.

Then compare their stats over a 162 game period:

Larkin: 99 runs, 33 2b, 6 3b, 15 HR, 71 RBI, 28 SB, 70 walks, .295, .815 OPS

Biggio: 105 runs, 38 2b, 3 3b, 17 HR, 67 RBI, 24 SB, 66 walks, .281 average, .796 OPS

These guys are remarkably similar, and as middle infielders who played in the same era they are about as close to peers as you can get. And frankly, if I had to just pick which player was beter based on the 162 game results, I'd give it to Larkin by the slightest margin to to the superior averge. But you can't overlook the fact that Biggio played in 30% MORE MLB games than Larkin did.

Even considering that Larkin was better defensively at a more important position that Biggio was, and the fact that Larkin won a WS i still have to view Biggio's accomplishments as superior to Larkin. Biggio will enter the Hall at some point, probably around yr 2-3 of eligibility just like Larkin, but when it comes down to it I just dont know if Larkin would EVER get my vote, and if I was a voter he would not have gotten it in yr 3. Obviously Larkin wasn't a unanimous choice, so soem percentage of actual voters agree with me on this....

When he was voted in, I did an analysis of larkins vote totals over his 3 year eligibility period. When you consider year-over-year vote changes, Larkin had something like the highest increase over both a one year and 2 year period IN THE HISTORY OF HALL OF FAME VOTING. having no other candidiates who made it in Larkins year played no small part. The writers pitched a shutout this year as a way to show their protest. That hasn't been done for something like 40 years, isn't that what I heard? Larkin was at the right place at the right time when he was elected.

Side note: Take a look at Jim Edmonds and try to assess his HOF chances. Similar to Larkin in that he was an offensive AND Defensive standout at a critical position where most teams are willing to suffer below average offense output in exchange to solid defense. In my mind, Edmonds, who was just great when he was playing, just doesnt have the career numbers to get him in the HOF.

[RealDeal]

Comparing a 2B to a SS is silly. SS is the hardest position on the field, plenty of hacks can and have played 2B (not that Biggio is one of them). Biggio couldn't carry Larkins jock defensively. I bet if you asked 50 scouts if they would rather have Larkin or Biggio to start a team it would be around 45-5 Larkin, maybe 50-0. How do Biggio's numbers compare with Ozzie?

[DoubleD86]

The reason I no longer pay any attention to the Hall of Fame, except as a fun museum of Baseball's past:

Jim Rice
1995 BBWAA (29.8%)
1996 BBWAA (35.3%)
1997 BBWAA (37.6%)
1998 BBWAA (42.9%)
1999 BBWAA (29.4%)
2000 BBWAA (51.5%)
2001 BBWAA (57.9%)
2002 BBWAA (55.1%)
2003 BBWAA (52.2%)
2004 BBWAA (54.5%)
2005 BBWAA (59.5%)
2006 BBWAA (64.8%)
2007 BBWAA (63.5%)
2008 BBWAA (72.2%)
2009 BBWAA (76.4%)

Somehow, in 14 years of not playing, Jim Rice became more worthy according to 50% of the voters. Absolutely ridiculous.

That was the day I stopped caring about who gets voted in.

[chico]

Like realdeal said, you can't compare Larkin to Biggio - even though Biggio should be in the HOF as well. A better comparison is to other shortstops as was done in the article. And the analysis done there shows that Larkin was on par, and in many cases better, than all but a handful of shortstops.

As for Edmonds, he had a nice career but didn't even get 2,000 hits. The closest he ever got to an MVP season was 4th. I'm also not sure how a position that yielded players such as DiMaggio, Mays, Mantle and Yount is one that people sacrifice offense to the degree that the do with shortstop.

It's simply a red herring to even bring Edmonds and Biggio into the conversation, and does nothing to refute any of what was stated in the article.

Re-read the article and tell me again how his career is not HOF worthy.

And if you would like more, read this one. These are from guys who have been around the game for a while and are much more knowledgeable than your or I.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof10/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=4777032

[MHettel]

Comparing a 2B to a SS is silly. SS is the hardest position on the field, plenty of hacks can and have played 2B (not that Biggio is one of them). Biggio couldn't carry Larkins jock defensively. I bet if you asked 50 scouts if they would rather have Larkin or Biggio to start a team it would be around 45-5 Larkin, maybe 50-0. How do Biggio's numbers compare with Ozzie?

I dont think that SS and 2b are the same. i didnt suggest that they were. But the closest thing to SS is 2B, right? I mean middle infield is middle infied. Those that can play shortstop play short. The rest of them get moved to 2B. I realize that. And Biggio as a second baseman was not as good defensively as Larkin was as a shortstop. I conceded all of that.

But Biggio was on the field so much more than Larkin that to me it outweighs the difference in defensive position and defensive performance. In 19 years, larkin played in 71% of his teams games. in 20 years, Biggio played in 88% of his teams games. that is an enormous disparity between these 2, and this alone is the reason why Biggio achieved some serious career milestones that Larkin wasn't even in the neighborhood.

If I'm judging careers, Biggio takes this easily. I put a premium on achievement of career numbers.

And, if I told 50 scouts that Barry larkin and Craig Biggio would both be healthy to play an entire season I would bet ALL 50 of them would take a 5 star defensive shortstop over a 4 star defensive 2B. But unfortunately, thats not a reality, and Larkin
was consitently missing anywhere between 20 and 50 games a year. i would think with all this considered the 50 scouts would be more 50/50 if not leaning towards Biggio as the majority pick.

As far as ozzie Smith, he's not comparable to Larkin. Ozzie was SO far superior defensively to everyone that it's tough to really quantify it. Ozzie defensively was like Barry Sanders running the football....something amazing will happen. Nobody ever talks about the most exciting runningback, they ask about the second most exciting running back. Ozzie was that good. Offensively, Ozzie was poor early in his career then blossomed into a very good #2 hitter with great discipline. But overall, Larkin was far superior to Ozzie at the plate. Ozzie did steal a ton of bases, however....