Closing the Floodgates: the Next Five Years of BBWAA Hall of Fame Elections
Save for the actual inductions of this year’s six honorees — the late Roy Halladay, Edgar Martinez, Mike Mussina, and Mr Unanimity, Mariano Rivera, elected by the BBWAA last week and Harold Baines and Lee Smith by the Today’s Game Era Committee last month — the Hall of Fame circus is leaving town, at least until the July 19-22 induction weekend in Cooperstown. Before it departs, however, it’s time engage in my sixth annual attempt to gaze into the crystal ball to see what the next five elections will hold.
Admittedly, this is an exercise requiring some amount of imagination and speculation, though it is grounded in my research into the candidates and the history and mechanics of the voting. Having said that, the past half-decade of changes to the process raises the question of how valuable that history is, at least as a road map. As a response to the logjam of qualified candidates, the Hall’s own truncation of candidacies from 15 years to 10 — less to clean up the ballots than to move the intractable debate over PED-related candidates out of the spotlight — and its rejection of any variation from the long-standing 10-slot rule, the writers have responded by setting and breaking records for slots used per ballot, and for ballots filled to the max. As a result, the BBWAA has elected 20 players over the last six years, five more than in any other six-year stretch in voting history. We’ve had three quartets elected over the past five years, compared to two (plus the original 1936 quintet) over the previous 78 years.
What’s more, the current millennium has seen more candidates recover from slow starts than any other time in modern voting history. From 1966-2005, only three candidates recovered from debuts below 25% and eventually reached 75%: Duke Snider (17.0% in 1970, elected in 1981), Don Drysdale (21.0% in 1975, elected in 1984) and Billy Williams (23.4% in 1982, elected in 1987). Since then, we’ve seen four players elected despite such slow starts, including two in the past three years: Bruce Sutter (23.9% in 1994, elected in 2006), Bert Blyleven (17.5% in 1998, elected in 2011), Tim Raines (24.3% in 2008, elected in 2017), and Mussina (20.3% in 2014, elected this year). We also saw Martinez recover from a fifth-year dive to 25.2%, compounded by the mid-candidacy loss of five years of eligibility, to gain entry, and next year, if all goes right, Larry Walker will get to 75% despite not only a first-year showing of 20.3% in 2011, but a low of 10.2% in 2014, and just 21.9% in 2017 before back-to-back big gains carried him to 54.6% this year. Suddenly, just about anything seems possible.
Because of that, I’ve had to revisit my long-term forecasts annually, as any given year’s incorrect assumptions wind up creating a ripple effect, so it’s back to the drawing board each time. For example, consider how my view of the 2018 election and its quartet of honorees evolved over the years. In 2014, just a year removed from the BBWAA’s first shutout since 1996, I predicted that Chipper Jones and Raines, in his 11th year, would be elected in 2018, but later that summer came the aforementioned rule change. Meanwhile, I envisioned Jim Thome being elected in 2019, the final year of that window, with Vladimir Guerrero in the 45-55% range, Trevor Hoffman in the 30% range, and 11 players elected over the five year span; instead, with voters breaking the slots-per-ballot record three times, we got 16, the largest five-year surge in Hall history. In 2015, my forecast for 2018 yielded Jones and Thome, with Raines having fallen off in 2017, and Guerrero and Hoffman possibly above 60% by 2020, setting themselves up for 2021. Circa 2016, my view of 2018 had Hoffman going in alongside Jones and Thome, with Raines elected in 2017 and Guerrero in 2020. In 2017, I finally got 2018 right, naming the aforementioned fab four. It was the first time I had even gotten the next year’s entire slate right since my 2015 forecast for Ken Griffey Jr. and Mike Piazza in ’16. You may want to hold off wagering the baby’s freshman year tuition on my 2024 predictions.
For the sake of this exercise, I am assuming the Hall will keep the 10 votes per ballot system in place, with a 5% minimum to avoid falling off and 10 years of eligibility for new candidates. Note that each ballot’s year refers to the year of induction; that ballot is released in November of the previous year, with ballots due on December 31. To be eligible, a candidate must not have played in the majors for five full seasons, but his eligibility year will actually be six years after his last appearance.
2020
Top newcomers (listed in order of JAWS): Derek Jeter, Bobby Abreu, Jason Giambi, Cliff Lee, Alfonso Soriano
Top holdovers (listed by estimated percentage): Curt Schilling, Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Larry Walker, Omar Vizquel
Most likely to be elected: Jeter, Walker
Falling off: None, assuming Walker’s election
With his 3,465 hits (sixth all-time), 14 All-Star appearances, and five championship rings, Jeter isn’t just a lock for Cooperstown, he’s got a decent chance to match Rivera’s unanimous showing even with his defensive shortcomings, particularly with the rockiness of his early tenure as part-owner of the Marlins now receding into the background. At worst, he’ll wind up with a top-10 share of the vote, which is to say, upwards of 97.3%.
He’ll be the only first-ballot guy this year, but isn’t the only newcomer. The criminally underrated Abreu — a career .291/.395/.475 (128 OPS+) hitter who hit 288 homers, stole 400 bases, but somehow made just two All-Star teams — has the second-highest JAWS among the newcomers (50.8), and while that’s nestled between Hall of Famers Dave Winfield and Guerrero in the JAWS rankings, where Abreu is 20th, he’s significantly below the bar. I’m not yet convinced he belongs, but Bill James and MLB Network’s Brian Kenny are already stumping for him, so perhaps I need to take a closer look; in any event, let us hope he sticks around the ballot.
The first-timers won’t lack for power: Adam Dunn hit 462 homers, Giambi 440, Paul Konerko 439, and Soriano 412. Yet of that group only Giambi has an OPS+ above 130 (139) or a JAWS above 30.0 (50.5/42.2/46.4), and his prominent position in BALCO probably consigns him to a fate not unlike that of Gary Sheffield; the rest will make even less of a dent on the ballot. Lee, with just 143 career wins and the 124th-highest JAWS among starting pitchers, will go one-and-done just as Johan Santana and Roy Oswalt did.
In last year’s edition of this, I had Mussina as a 2020 honoree, and never dreamed that Walker would have a shot at election; I was merely hoping the latter would get to 50% to give himself a shot on the 2022 Today’s Game Era Committee ballot. Now he needs almost to replicate this year’s 20.5% jump to get from 54.6% to 75%; in doing so, he would surpass Ralph Kiner (58.9% in 1974) for the lowest penultimate percentage of any honoree. Having seen the way electorates closed ranks around Raines and Martinez in their final years of eligibility, I’m hopeful that the same will be true for Walker, particularly at a time when voters will be less crunched for ballot space. Schilling, the top returning candidate with 60.9% could make the jump as well — sparing me the need to ponder voting for him when I get my own first ballot in 2021 — but somehow I don’t think I’ll get quite that lucky. Vizquel, who polled at 42.8% this year, could cross the 50% threshold; by now it’s clear that despite the resistance of statheads, he’s on a path to election.
Bonds and Clemens will finally break 60%, but aren’t likely to move much more quickly than they have the past two cycles, over which they’ve gained 5.3% and 5.4%, respectively. Without such a crunch, down-ballot guys such as third-year candidates Scott Rolen and Andruw Jones, second-year candidates Todd Helton and Andy Pettitte, and longer-lingering holdovers such as Jeff Kent (seventh year), Gary Sheffield (sixth year), Billy Wagner (fifth year), and Manny Ramirez (fourth year) should all see substantial gains.
2021
Top newcomers: Tim Hudson, Mark Buehrle, Torii Hunter, Dan Haren, Barry Zito, Aramis Ramirez
Top holdovers: Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, Vizquel
Most likely to be elected: Schilling
Falling off: None
The first year I’ll have a ballot will be the weakest one for newcomers since 2012, as none is anywhere close to the JAWS standard at his position or has a notable milestone that will fuel his candidacy. Note that there won’t be a single candidate in his 10th year, as nobody from 2012 even made it onto the 2014 ballot.
Hudson won 222 games and finished with a 120 ERA+, but he ranks just 81st in JAWS, far below Schilling, Mussina, and Halladay (27th, 29th, and 43rd, respectively). Buehrle, with his 214 wins and 116 ERA+, ranks 88th, and Pettitte 90th, while Haren is more than 100 notches below that (though if Schilling’s Twitter feed can hinder his candidacy, maybe Haren’s can help his). Hunter has 2,452 hits, 353 homers and nine Gold Gloves, but he’s 33rd among center fielders in JAWS, nowhere near as good as the Kenny Lofton/Jones/Jim Edmonds cluster from 10th to 15th — and two of those three were done in by the Five Percent Rule. Ramirez had some thump (386 homers and a .492 slugging percentage) but is 84 runs below average by the defensive metrics, leaving him just 60th in JAWS among third basemen.
All of which suggests that this will be another year for holdovers such as Kent, Sheffield, Rolen, Helton and Jones to step forward, though the top candidates by this point are likely to be the controversial trio of Bonds, Clemens, and Schilling. Two years ago I believed this would be the Gruesome Twosome’s opening, with Schilling a year behind, but if the latter falls short in 2020, he’s got a golden opportunity here, if he can avoid alienating people during an election year, something he was unable to do in 2016. Cooperstown better root hard for somebody to break through on the Era Committee ballots, specifically the Golden Days and Early Baseball ones — Dick Allen and Tony Oliva missed by one vote last time, Jim Kaat by two — to help draw people to an induction day that might otherwise be as appealing as a jar of mayonnaise left in the sun.
2022
Top newcomers: Alex Rodriguez, David Ortiz, Mark Teixeira, Jimmy Rollins, Joe Nathan, Jonathan Papelbon
Top holdovers: Bonds, Clemens, Vizquel, Rolen, Helton, Kent, Wagner
Most likely to be elected: Bonds, Clemens
Falling off: Sosa
This, the 10th year of their candidacy, is obviously the last, and probably the best, chance for Bonds and Clemens to finally gain entry. Right now, their chances don’t look so hot, as it appears that there’s a large enough bloc to filibuster them, but two more years of voter turnover will keep them inching towards 75% nonetheless. This ballot, which will introduce the candidacies of Rodriguez and Ortiz, will place the conversation about PEDs front and center, and you can expect a fairly heated election cycle. Buckle up.
Despite his 696 home runs and 117.8 WAR, Rodriguez will almost certainly be consigned to down-ballot purgatory due to his full-year suspension for his involvement in the Biogenesis scandal, ahead of twice-suspended Ramirez (who has maxed out at 23.8%) but not by much. Both Rodriguez and Ortiz (and Ramirez, for that matter) reportedly failed the 2003 survey test, which commissioner Rob Manfred basically disavowed during the latter’s retirement tour, on the basis of “issues and ambiguities” that were never resolved, so voters can’t hold that episode against A-Rod while suggesting that Ortiz is as pure as the driven snow. Which isn’t to say that I’m advocating voters hold the survey test against any player; I draw the line between what happened prior to the advent of testing and suspensions in 2004 — including andro, BALCO, and much of what wound up in the Mitchell Report — and what happened after, so if MLB couldn’t discipline Ortiz, or Bonds or Clemens, or Sosa (who will age off the ballot this year if he hasn’t already slipped below 5%) or Mark McGwire, then I don’t think it’s the voters’ place to do so.
Instead, Ortiz’s candidacy should be considered on the merits. On the one hand are his 541 career home runs and great postseason numbers (.289/404/.543 with 17 homers) while serving as the centerpiece of the Red Sox’s three championships from 2004-2013. On the other hand, there’s the stigma of his having spent 88% of his career at designated hitter, accumulating a respectable but hardly spectacular 55.3 WAR. But just as his retirement tour gave Martinez (72% of his career at DH, 68.4 WAR) a significant boost towards election, his election in turn will persuade many that the only other competitor for the position’s greatest practitioner belongs in Cooperstown as well. Still, it’s going to look quite strange if voters tab him while turning their noses up at the much more complete and dominant Bonds (162.8 WAR) and Clemens (139.6 WAR), when the league had no means of disciplining any of them. Good times.
Beyond Ortiz and Rodriguez, it’s difficult to see any other newcomer making a dent. Rollins will have his adherents, but he only made three All-Star appearances and ranks just 32nd among shortstops in JAWS, ahead of only two Hall of Famers, Phil Rizzuto and Rabbit Maranville (not to mention Vizquel). Teixeira didn’t even reached 2,000 hits, and voters haven’t elected any player from the post-1960 expansion era who failed to do so (the Rule of 2,000). Neither Nathan (377 saves in 923.1 innings) nor Papelbon (368 saves in 725 innings) can match Wagner or Hoffman in the most traditional yardsticks for relievers; Nathan is slightly ahead of Hoffman and Wagner in JAWS, and just below the pair in my WAR-WPA-WPA/LI hybrid stat, with Papelbon ninth there. I don’t see either getting as much support as Wagner could have by this time, though we’ll get to dust off Papelbon’s crotch-grabbing and Bryce Harper-choking videos for laughs.
The modest crop will leave a lot of room for holdovers, though by this point, we shouldn’t expect the kind of fervor that has greeted ballots over the past six years, during which voters have included at least 7.95 names per ballot, breaking the modern record three times. Still, Vizquel could be pushing 60% by this point, even with a whole lot of analytically-minded voters less than convinced of his merits. On the flip side, analytical favorites such as Rolen and Helton could be picking up steam, perhaps in the 40%-50% range. Or maybe it’s Kent, in his ninth year, benefiting from the dearth of non-PED-linked players with impressive career totals. By this point, I’m throwing darts.
2023
Top newcomers: Carlos Beltran, John Lackey, Jered Weaver, Jhonny Peralta, Francisco Rodriguez
Top holdovers: Vizquel, Rolen, Helton, Kent, Wagner, Alex Rodriguez, Jones
Most likely to be elected: Ortiz, Beltran
Falling off: Kent
With nine All-Star appearances, three Gold Gloves, 2,725 hits, 435 homers, outstanding postseason numbers (.307/.412/.609 with 16 homers), and the number eight ranking among center fielders in JAWS, Beltran should break through where Lofton, Edmonds, Jones, and Hunter have come up short. His October prowess will make for a fitting Cooperstown companionship with Ortiz, particularly given the 10th anniversary of the year the pair squared off in the World Series.
The rest of the ballot is slim pickings. Lackey, whose 33.5 JAWS is second among the incoming class of candidates, ranks 213th among starting pitchers, and again, he’s the best of the bunch. Rodriguez, despite his 437 career saves in 976 innings, is 35th in JAWS among relievers, and 12th in my hybrid stat, and he comes with some significant off-field concerns regarding multiple criminal charges, including a guilty plea to third-degree assault for attacking his girlfriend’s father in 2010 and a 2012 arrest for a domestic abuse charge.
By this point, I expect Kent to have climbed his way into similar territory as Alan Trammell and Fred McGriff did in order to set themselves up for Era Committees (the Crime Dog could even be in by this point, as he’ll be eligible for the 2022 Today’s Game slate). Vizquel will be above 60%, and I expect Rolen to be as well. Wagner, Helton, and Jones should be in the vicinity of 50%.
2024
Top newcomers: Adrian Beltre, Ichiro Suzuki, Chase Utley, Joe Mauer, Wright
Top holdovers: Vizquel, Rolen, Helton, Kent, Wagner, Alex Rodriguez, Jones
Most likely to be elected: Beltre, Suzuki, Mauer
Falling off: Sheffield
We close out this five-year look with the players who hung up their spikes after the 2018 season, starting with Beltre. With 3,166 hits, 477 homers, the number two ranking in fielding runs at the hot corner and the number four ranking there in JAWS, he’ll not only waltz into Cooperstown, he may well be one who flirts with unanimity. That’s a remarkable turn of events given that when he left Seattle after the 2009 season, he had never made an All-Star team, and his inability to live up to his big 2004 walk year made him something of a disappointment.
Speaking of players with over 3,000 hits, time spent in Seattle, and a chance at unanimity, Suzuki has a shot as well. That said, the former MVP, 10-time All-Star and 10-time Gold Glove winner, who turned 45 in October, just signed a minor-league deal with the Mariners, with the intent of playing again; whether it’s just for the team’s season-opening two-game series in Japan or longer, such a stint would delay his Hall eligibility by a year. Until that happens, he’s slotted here.
Mauer, a six-time All-Star, three-time Gold Glove winner, three-time batting champion (the only catcher who can claim that distinction) and former MVP winner himself, ranks seventh in JAWS among catchers. Forced off the position due to post-concussion problems, he spent the last five seasons of his career as a more or less league average first baseman, but even with that handicap, and with just 921 games caught, his seven-year peak — all from his years behind the plate — ranks fifth, behind only Gary Carter, Johnny Bench, Mike Piazza, and Ivan Rodriguez. A hometown success story and the rare overall number one pick who lived up to his billing, he’s a player likely to get an extra bump in the character department, which is sure to stir up the faction of Twins fans still mad online about his salary. See you in Cooperstown.
Less likely to wind up there, at least on the 2024 ballot, is Utley. Despite the fact that he never drew more than 300 plate appearances in a season until age 26, he ranks 11th in JAWS among second baseman (and ninth in peak) thanks to the tremendous impact of his fielding and baserunning. Alas, if voters’ failure to recognize him in the MVP races and Gold Glove awards didn’t already make it apparent that he’s facing an uphill battle, I fear that he’ll become a victim of the Rule of 2,000, as he finished with just 1,885 hits. That said, five years down the line, with an electorate sophisticated enough not to rely solely on career totals as a yardstick, he’ll receive substantial support, and we can hope he eventually gets his plaque.
With seven All-Star appearances and 50.1 WAR through his age-31 season (2014) — 11th among third basemen to that point — Wright was on a path that conceivably could have carried him to Cooperstown, but spinal stenosis and shoulder injuries derailed him, finally forcing him into retirement this past fall. His 40.2 WAR peak score is short of the Hall standard (43.0), and his 1,777 hits leave him well short of 2,000, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he sticks around on what will be a much less crowded ballot than more recent candidates such as Santana, Oswalt, and Lance Berkman faced.
As for the holdovers, I’m not yet convinced any of them will knocking on the 75% door by this point, though Vizquel and Rolen could be close. That leaves me with an estimate of just 10 players elected by the writers over the next five years, nine if Suzuki plays in 2019, seven if Bonds and Clemens fail to get over the hump, and six if Walker can’t quite get to 75% next year.
That’s a drastic change from the past six years, and it certainly leaves room for some candidates to fill the void. Perhaps the candidacies of Wagner, Rolen, and Helton will pick up momentum with the speed of those of Raines, Martinez, and Walker. But even if they do, it’s obvious that the times are a-changing from what we’ve come to expect in recent years. The ballot crunch will have lessened, 10-candidate slates will become more rare, and after Bonds and Clemens clear the ballot one way or another in 2022, the battles over who belongs in Cooperstown might not be quite so heated. That isn’t a bad thing at all.
Brooklyn-based Jay Jaffe is a senior writer for FanGraphs, the author of The Cooperstown Casebook (Thomas Dunne Books, 2017) and the creator of the JAWS (Jaffe WAR Score) metric for Hall of Fame analysis. He founded the Futility Infielder website (2001), was a columnist for Baseball Prospectus (2005-2012) and a contributing writer for Sports Illustrated (2012-2018). He has been a recurring guest on MLB Network and a member of the BBWAA since 2011, and a Hall of Fame voter since 2021. Follow him on BlueSky @jayjaffe.bsky.social.
Why David Ortiz but not Sammy Sosa? Also Mark Buehrle deserves more support.
The nice thing about Buehrle is that if he does somehow get elected, you can count on his acceptance speech not dragging on very long.
If Buehrle had pulled a Jamie Moyer/Omar Vizquel/Bartolo Colon then he would have eventually gotten elected; but he didn’t have much of a decline phase which is a mandatory component of being a hall of famer for most players; you have to suck/start sucking for five years or so (see for example Ichiro Suzuki or Derek Jeter, though there are countless more). Notable that he has 60.3 WAR on B-Ref and just 51.9 on Fangraphs; even more drastic than Tim Hudson’s 56.9/51.3 split; for those that don’t worship at the altar of FIP that could matter quite a bit.
That difference is entirely down to his ability to consistently beat his FIP, which he did by fielding his position really well and completely shutting down the running game. Having Buehrle on the mound was basically the equivalent of having Tulo at short and Yadi behind the plate.
Then there’s his ability to suppress exit velocity, which was evident even in his decline.
He didn’t really even have much of a decline. His numbers in his final season aren’t too far off of his career averages. He just ran out of gas and hung it up. He probably could have hung on for another 2-3 seasons if he’d felt like it.
In fairness…Jeter only sucked for one year (albeit after missing the year previous).
Gotta say…I’d be interested in hearing the rationale of people who disagree with the statement “Derek Jeter did not suck for ‘5 seasons or so’ – just his final 162 games.”
Jeter put up a 105 wRC+ and 7.6 WAR from 2010-2012.
The 8th best SS over that span, Hanley Ramirez, put up 8.1 WAR.
The 12th best SS over that span, Marco Scutaro, put up 7.1 WAR.
Hell, he was the 7th best SS in the league in 2012 – he was just cooked after the ankle injury that postseason.
On the why Ortiz and not Sosa question, here are a few different explanations I can think of (note I am NOT endorsing these; I’d vote for both):
1) The congressional hearing. Setting aside his much- (and wrongly) ridiculed testimony, the guilt by association of sharing a table with Canseco, Palmeiro and McGwire is probably significant among a certain subset of the voting population; after all, those other guys are all admitted or confirmed PED users (these voters consider andro to be a PED and don’t much care whether it was legal under baseball rules at the time).
2) The corked bat. Lots of “buts” to mitigate this, but the fact is Sosa has two cheating-related clouds over him, fairly or not, whereas Ortiz has only the test that MLB itself rejects as evidence of actual usage.
3) The misfortune of peaking 5-10 years earlier, pre-testing. Ortiz’s peak began in 2004, the first year of testing, which means that he never failed a test during the peak of his career. Sosa can’t say that because testing didn’t exist in the late 1990s.
4) Ortiz’s postseason cred, role in ending the “curse,” overall reputation among players, fans, writers, etc.
to #3, lance armstrong never failed a test either….
https://www.velonews.com/2012/10/analysis/no-armstrong-never-tested-positive-but-how_261616
There’s also the fact that Sosa came out of nowhere to hit 60+ homers three straight years starting at age 29 after spending several years as a good but not great hitter. While there are some other similar cases such as Jose Bautista, such a career path is very rare and awfully suspicious to many voters.
Honestly…the leap to 60 HR was less surprising than the leap from a replacement level 15 HR guy to hitting 35 a year, with no change in approach.
I asked this same question awhile back…
I really hope the Hall does the right thing and doesn’t make Ichiro wait an extra year just because he wanted to play a couple of games in his home country.
Given that Ichiro’s election is all but a foregone conclusion, I don’t see any misery being inflicted from waiting an extra year or two.
The Hall has yet to make an exception like this and I don’t see them doing it for Ichiro, especially because bumping him to 2025 is a virtual guarantee of another year with at least one tremendously popular player getting elected.
So I’m confused. Based on the comments and the up and down votes, people honestly believe the HOF should take a hardline over Ichiro playing two games in Japan. And make him wait as long as possible. And risk a tremendous public relations snafu if we end up in a Roy Halladay-like situation.
Both LHPSU an Jay suggest that since Ichiro is a automatic Hall of Famer, there’s no harm in making him wait. But the opposite is actually true. If someone’s an automatic Hall of Famer, there’s really no reason to make him wait at all. (and certainly not a full year over two measly games).
And while the Hall has “yet to make an exception like this”, they’ve also never had a situation exactly like this before. But they have changed their rules in the past under compelling circumstances (e.g., Clemente).
They make a similar exception for Bernie Mac..
Just an attempt at levity in a surprisingly dark twist!
If Ichiro happens to pass from the living within the next five years, I assure you that not getting elected in his lifetime would be the least of the tragedies.
A, Ichiro knows what the HoF eligibility rules are, and he’s choosing to play anyway. If getting to the Hall as soon as possible was his main priority, he could make it happen- in fact, he could probably have retired five years ago and be getting in right now. If he doesn’t care that much, why should the Hall go out of its way to make an exception?
B, unless he commits a serious crime or something, Ichiro’s going in first-ballot, so he’ll be about 50 when he’s elected. That’s still fairly young- plenty of great players have had to wait longer. There really isn’t a problem that needs fixing, here.
C, while this may seem like an easy call in Ichiro’s case, it opens up a can of worms for future players, both in terms of which players are good/popular enough to merit an exception, and how many games they have to play for a season to “count.” The Hall doesn’t exactly have a great track record with decisions like this. The folks who decided to let Reinsdorf and La Russa vote on Harold Baines would eventually find a way to mess this up.
Technically, the Hall has made such exceptions but only when the player in question has suddenly died prematurely.
Once Bonds/Clemans get in, what reason would there be for writers to not immediately vote for A-Rod the following year?
Because most voters can still draw a distinction between a player who was suspended for violating very clear rules and one who took advantage of a lack of enforcement.
I’m sure that is a non-zero cohort, yes. But I bet it’s more of a yes/no on PED use in the larger sense for most voters. Once the PED barrier breaks, it will be much like a bursting dam.
It’s more than a non-zero cohort, it’s the majority of Bonds and Clemens voters. There’s a reason the pair are pushing 60% and Manny is around 22%, and it goes beyond the crunch for ballot space.
To be fair, Bonds and Clemens have approximately twice Manny’s fWAR. That seems to be the more relevant difference.
It’s not, not really. I think more than half of the voters who differentiate between Manny and Bonds/Clemens do so because of the testing-era penalties. It’s very prevalent.
Yep – and A-Rod’s on the list of “double Manny’s WAR” as well.
It’s a question of “great hitter” vs. “one of the greatest players in MLB history.”
As true as that may be, it still doesn’t make sense. Steroids, HGH, and other obvious PEDs (although not andro) have been clearly against MLB rules since the early 90’s. Those rules just weren’t enforced until 2004.
yeah, lets vote in cheaters
Bonds and Clemens put up HOF-worthy careers before they apparently started using PEDs. None of the other suspects appears to have done so. ARod probably would have also been HOF caliber even if he had not used, but he appears to have started early, so it is hard to be sure.
Big Papi gets 100% of the vote and in the same year Bonds/Clemens get 74.9%, A-Rod gets 4.9%; Murray Chass writes a masterpiece about how this is a great and wise decision by the sagacious electorate.
This would be the furthest from a masterpiece. You can triple Big Papi’s career WAR total and it still wouldn’t sniff Bonds. Now I understand the HOF voting doesn’t go off of WAR. But that is such a significant difference that it is difficult to ignore. Let’s not forget that when challenged about his name being on the Mitchell Report, Big Papi said he was going to get to the bottom of it! He hasn’t. Because he’s just as caught up in it as anyone else accused of it. But Big Papi will get a pass for whatever reason. It’s a travesty, not a masterpiece.
Getting breezy in here for some odd reason…
As far as the “getting to the bottom of it”, let’s face it, if you are remotely aware of the facts of the case — and you should really try — the ownership of the test results, which is the only way Ortiz could have have gotten the information, was complicated when they were seized by the Feds in the Balco case. The union should have long since destroyed them, but didn’t, and now they are effectively sealed evidence. There is not a blessed thing Ortiz could do to get any information, so to criticize him for not doing so after insisting he would try, is to ignore the fact that legally he cannot get access and never will.
Comparing Bonds’ WAR with anyone is irrelevant, because most HOFers are well short of Mr. Bonds’ numbers. And Bonds’ WAR is irrelevant to why he has not been voted in.
You are right in that Papi is getting more sympathetic treatment because he was a larger than life lovable and iconic figure who lifted a cursed franchise over the threshold on his back to multiple World Series titles and symbolized a city’s defiance of a terrorist attack. The contrast with Bonds in that regard is striking. Doesn’t break me up all that much though.
“Vizquel, who polled at 42.8% this year, could cross the 50% threshold; by now it’s clear that despite the resistance of statheads, he’s on a path to election.”
I don’t think so. Much like Clemens and Bonds have bumped into a “Steroids Ceiling” for lack of a better term, I think Vizquel will bump into a “Stathead Ceiling”. I think there will be enough people that just won’t vote for him that he’ll be kept out.
I think the path Jay refers to is that getting to 50% seems like a lock and at that point hes likely a shoo in via committee vote which will be very friendly for him
Almost every player to get to 50% has eventually been inducted. Bonds and Clemens dont have this as an advantage because the committee people are the ones who oppose their election
This. Current candidates aside, Gil Hodges is the only guy to get to 50% and never get in.
Yeah – there’s a pretty binary relationship between “people who have heard of FG” and Vizquel voters.
I see Big Papi as a first ballot hall of famer. Dude was money when it mattered most and unlike Bonds and Clemens is extremely likeable. He has the counting stats and the prestige. Regardless of suspicions, he won’t be held back. He’ll get the votes.
Am hoping Larry Walker doesn’t have to wait for some future committee to get it right.
Here is the list of candidates I would genuinely be excited to vote for between now and 2023:
1) Derek Jeter
2) Larry Walker
Here is the list of candidates I would genuinely be excited to vote for in 2024:
1) Ichiro
2) Utley
3) Beltre
4) Mauer
That’s not to say there aren’t interesting candidates in between 2020 and 2024, but guys I would actually be super-excited to vote for? 2021-2023 is gonna be irritating.
Not sure why Utley’s on that list but not Rolen – they’re almost absurdly the same player.
Does the fact that Ichiro is likely to play in the Japan games for the Mariners this season, push him back a year or will that small of an amount of playing time be overlooked?
Speaking of overlooked.
I enjoy the comments on this website. Seems like we have educated writers for the most part contributing to these blogs. Here is a question for you…. If I could show you that the steroid era was a time frame when players took steroids, that’s all and that there was no impact to home runs would you believe me?
I just researched HRs/Game since 1871 through 2017 to see how much impact the use of steroids had on Home Runs and found the answer to be negligible!! Yes, the home runs per game did not vary significantly from previous or later years. My expectation was that I would see this upward trend and that I could identify a rough beginning and ending to the era, but I couldn’t. Would it surprise you that there are two huge jumps in HRs/Game since 1871 and one small one? The first large jump happened in the 1920s when the live ball era began. The second huge jump was in the 1950s. The average number of home runs per game in the 1920s was .402, in the 1950s it was .844 over double that of the Ruth and Gehrig era. I guess it’s no surprise that their records fell to Aaron and Maris. In fact, 1961 stood as the highest HRs/Game at 0.95 until 1987 when it jumped to 1.06. Is it any wonder that Maris broke Ruth’s record that year? The public didn’t like Maris beating Ruth’s record but Congress was not asked to step in and eventually the public accepted it.
In 1987, when HRs/Game peaked again I thought I would see the beginning of the steroid era. Unfortunately, the next year in 1988 the number dropped to 0.76 and then 0.73 in 1989. The 1989 number was the lowest since 1946! So, were steroids affecting HRs/Game in the 80s? The numbers suggest no. We know Canseco, McGwire and many others were taking them so were the non-steroid guys magically hitting less homers or was there no impact on HRs caused by steroids?
Now let’s look at the 90s, the time frame most people associate with the steroid era. In 1993 and 1994 we saw back to back years of large growth in HRs per game so we can once again hypothesize that the steroid era began then. Unfortunately, in 1995 the total fell back again then surged then fell back much like the post WWII time frame. The significant difference between the two eras of the 1990s and the 1950s is that the 50s average was double that of the 20s but the 90s average was about 15% higher than the 50s. So Aaron’s era hit double the home runs per game of Ruth’s era and Bond’s era (the steroid era) hit 15% more than Aaron’s era. These numbers are indisputable facts so why does the public believe there was a huge jump in home runs during the alleged steroid era? My answer isn’t one many people are going to want to hear but I believe it is true.
A generation of baseball fans idolized their heroes and much like the grief Maris received in 1961 and Aaron received in the 1970s as he passed Ruth, they turned on their current stars and did what was necessary to discredit the achievements of the next generation of ball players. When we consider senators were intervening to save the sanctity of Aaron’s and Maris’ accomplishments we see exactly how ‘out of control’ the desire was for discrediting the current players of that time. There is so much misinformation about the steroid era, it could fill a book!!
Let’s begin with the idea that the steroid era began in the 1990s despite what Canseco said in his tell all book. I went to a division III school in the mid 1970s and steroids were taken by both football and baseball players. The basketball players took speed to gain an advantage. I can’t imagine how much more prevalent the use of steroids were for the scholarship players at division I schools in 1975. I believe over time players have always tried to gain an advantage and each time they did you could consider it cheating or competing depending on your perspective on gamesmanship and competition. My father went to spring training with the Braves in 1942 and players corked bats back then. I observed the eras when scuffing the ball, using Vaseline and other substances was common place. The stats over time reflect the impact of these indiscretions by various players. The difference with steroids was that steroids was a “Performance Enhancer”. Unfortunately, nobody ever accurately proved any statistical enhancements, they were assumed. There is no record of steroid pitchers versus steroid hitters, steroid hitters and pitchers versus non-steroid hitters and pitchers and no record of any changes in stats by those pitcher vs hitter match-ups when both were not using steroids. So how is it the public is convinced there were so many more home runs? How did they know that steroid hitters out-performed steroid pitchers? I’ve never seen nor heard of any quantitative analysis showing the true impact, it’s all assumed and propagated by the public, including sports writers. Nobody has documentation as to whether a steroid user performed best on the day he took the steroid or the day after he took it. Everything is assumed not facts.
What if the steroid users were like the corked bat players or the cocaine users or the amphetamine users or the heavy drinkers or the coffee drinkers? They all tried to get an edge over others by doing something they thought would help but the numbers show it didn’t. If the guys that took steroids played longer, had better stamina, recovered from injuries quicker and could lift weights and build strength faster shouldn’t that be reflected in their numbers? If the HRs/Game don’t reflect it then to say they had an advantage you must have conclusive proof that some numbers changed due the specific use of steroids. That documentation doesn’t exist. The reason the documentation doesn’t exist is that nobody truly knows the extent of steroid use. Also, nobody knows if the use of amphetamines aided players more than steroids. Nobody knows if the use of coffee had a greater impact on performance. Steroids might have impacted size or strength but actual performance, there is no documentation only assumptions.
Barry Bonds was the greatest player I’ve seen in my lifetime. His speed and athleticism moves him ahead of the greatest hitter I ever saw, Ted Williams. Both players were generations ahead of others in their approach to hitting. I often hear how Bonds got an unfair advantage because he had higher numbers late in his career than previous players. He had a peak year at 37 and Aaron had his late peak at 36. So, if steroids had no impact on home runs per game, then how can we explain the last half of Bond’s career? I believe, like Williams, Bonds understood hitting concepts that had yet to be officially discovered. He played prior to the huge sabremetric ‘buy-in’ period. I believe his quick hands, his excellent vision and his launch angle were superior to those he competed with. I believe what he did with his swing can be reviewed and be shown to be a predecessor to our current hitting concepts of launch angle. Like Williams who wrote about hitting concepts long before they were accepted and taught, Bonds exhibited concepts we are now using to educate our young hitters.
From a morality standpoint, guys like Tom Verducci can take the high road and say he knowingly cheated. If his cheating had no impact on his numbers then it’s not cheating it is attempted cheating. Is it wrong to try to knowingly get an advantage over your opponent? That’s something for each person to determine. If the impact of drinking coffee or taking amphetamines makes you more confident at the plate and you believe you do better, are they equally performance enhancing? What if two players both perform better from taking coffee or drugs? Should the one taking the drugs be banned from the HOF and the other allowed in even if neither actually impacted performance they simply impacted confidence? Are there any numbers that can be generated that can separate the impact of confidence versus physical improvements? As a college pitcher I had my best game after a formal when I stayed out the entire night slept on the bus and woke up in time to warm up for the second game of the doubleheader. I think most would argue that alcohol is not performance enhancing but is there any evidence that conclusively shows that a steroid injection would have made me even better that day? NO!
We all know that Bonds wasn’t alone in taking steroids, we all know most of the fraternity indulged in steroids to some degree, some believe he didn’t use until the late 1990s so they can justify a HOF vote. I don’t care if he used or if anyone else used because there is NO EVIDENCE that using steroids improved their numbers. If we look at the HRs per Game and how they were not inconsistent with prior or later time frames then we would have to argue that for every steroid hit home run there was one less home run hit by a non-steroid player. That is a ridiculous argument so let’s just end the myth. Steroids may increase strength or expedite the increase in strength, may allow players to heal faster but they don’t impact overall performance as a certainty. If a player can bench 400 pounds because he took steroids but would have only made it to 350 had he not taken them, there is no proof that the extra 50 pounds of bench pressing will lead to 1 additional home run. There are far too many factors that go into the creation of a home run including: opposing pitcher, weather, ball, the ballpark, the wind and humidity. Assuming stronger from steroids means more home runs is an unproven hypothesis. The numbers actually show that to be a false hypothesis, otherwise, there would have been an upward trend in home runs per game beginning around 1975 and continuing until the 2000s. If steroids actually had an impact on home runs, the percentage increase in home runs per game would not have slowed during the 1990s. These are all facts that the public does not know about, understand or maybe isn’t willing to accept. Knowledgeable baseball personalities need to wrap their heads around this because perpetuating the idea that the steroid era created more home runs is simply a lie. It didn’t happen!!
If you disagree with what I’m saying, do your own research and observe the insignificant impact there was on HRs/Game over time. Why HRs per Game as the measuring stick? Because total home runs include changes in number of games played by each team and changes in the number of MLB teams.
I’m a baseball fan foremost and like most of the public I believed the experts saying home runs jumped during the steroid era. I didn’t like the way Selig threw his players under the bus then got elected to the HOF but until now I believed like most that baseball had egg on it’s face. Now that I’ve seen that the numbers don’t support the universally accepted idea that home runs grew I am adamant in trying to get the facts to the public and I think a website like this one will at least give the educated baseball fan the opportunity to review the facts and come to their own conclusions rather than buying-in on all the publicly communicated misinformation about the steroid era.
So, there’s a lot to unpack in your dissertation, but to keep it brief, HR/Games played probably isn’t the best metric to use. The ratios might not have a whole lot of variance over the years, but the way baseball rosters and the game itself have evolved have something to do with that.
Each expansion means more AAA/AAAA hitters, which dilutes the bottom end of the ratio. The top guys are hitting more and more home runs, but non-MLB-capable players “forced” into duty on expansion team rosters aren’t hitting them, so it evens itself out. More recently, roster juggling due to injuries or more frequent trial or interim call-ups mean non-MLB-ready players are getting ABs, which, again, dilutes the bottom end.
Even more recently than that, rebuilding teams or those disinterested in anything other than turning a profit (*cough*Marlins*cough*) roster players who wouldn’t sniff a MLB at-bat otherwise.
Honestly, I can’t even believe I’m responding to your post, but it seems earnest (if misguided) rather than someone trying to troll.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Call me Ishmael …
It was a pleasure to burn.
simple question.
during your defined ped period, how many 50, 60 and 70 hr seasons were there?
In ALL other seasons (about 100 years), before and after, how many 50, 60, 70 hr seasons were there?
Mean Mr Mustard – Like I said in my post, do the research if you don’t believe the numbers I quoted. I assure you they are accurate and while your information about rosters is true, I don’t believe anything you said applies to my argument which refutes that steroids impacted home runs hit 20 to 30 years ago. I agree with your comments, I simply don’t see how they relate to the discussion. If HRs/Game are misleading and not the most accurate measure, what is? To me, the claim is that HRs were impacted by the use of steroids and the numbers refute the misinformation spread over 20 years ago. We saw Congress get involved because the American public was so concerned that Bonds was going to displace Aaron’s records. That’s a huge step forward from the death threats levied on Maris and Aaron when they past Ruth. If there was an impact to HRs due to steroids and a steroid era existed why didn’t the numbers skew upward during the era? Why didn’t the average rate of change continue to grow instead of continuing to fluctuate with peaks and valleys every other year? I am open minded to legitimate arguments but I have yet to hear anything beyond extrapolation of apparent logic. The idea that bigger and stronger must mean more home runs is logical but it didn’t based on the numbers. And if it didn’t then the steroid era was nothing more than a time frame when players tried to cheat taking steroids, just like when amphetamines were used to cheat or bats were corked in an attempt to cheat or any of the other ineffective ways players have tried to gain an advantage since 1871.
Clearly, not all the public is ready for these facts. Some want to continue to believe their childhood heroes were better than the 90s heroes. Some simply think that something that has been inaccurately portrayed for 20 years must be right. But it’s not. At least I will never believe it now that I’ve looked at the numbers and saw the patterns remain the same even though a large portion of the league were probably taking steroids. I am sincere in my hopes to wipe the slate clean and give the players of the 90s some of their dignity back. The key to believing this shocking news is understanding that players did try to gain an advantage but failed. And until someone can account for who took steroids and who didn’t , how much and how often steroids were used and provide numbers that support the contention that steroids increased home runs all we can do is look at the macro numbers. The MLB statistics on HRs/Game show no starting point for a steroid era, no ending point for a steroid era and no unusual increases that might be associated with a steroid era. Thus, Bonds is legitimately the Home Run king whether you like him or not.
What bothers me most of all about this is that nobody has come forward with facts like this to support the players of the steroid era. We were all so convinced that the numbers shot up because of the way they were presented that nobody did a deep dive to validate the publicly accepted concept of home run growth. It’s 20 years later. This should have happened years ago.
I’m not disputing the numbers you quoted, if for no other reasons than that I don’t care to look them up and have no reason to disbelieve you.
However, the explosion of hitters ending their careers with 500, 550, 600 and upward home runs is plenty of reason to believe that steroids had plenty of impact; if not league-wide, then certainly for a curious number of hitters.
Or, if you don’t want to look at end-of-career numbers, I present to you exhibits A and B: Brady Anderson and Bret Boone.
We agree on statistical anomalies. Brady Andersen for me is the ultimate anomaly. To this day it makes no sense except every once in a while a player can have a exceptional year that goes far beyond what might be expected as a peak. I don’t believe Andersen took steroids for one year. Call it luck, being locked in, destiny … whatever happened for me is unexplainable and should probably remain a mystery of life. I regret not having him on my fantasy team that year!!
Bonds and McGwire both had a long track record of success like AROD. They all belong in the HOF or maybe a new Baseball Musuem needs to be built to honor the achievements of all baseball players including Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose. The politics of baseball has gotten in the way of greatness recognition since the 1919 White Sox. I hope the recognition that HRs/Game didn’t jump will open the door for more players who have clouds hanging over their heads and the HOF will be more reflective of the greatest players of all time.
FYI… here are the summarized stats:
Growth by Decade
Decade HR/GM Change % change Comments
1870s 0.086
1880s 0.195 0.109 2.267 HRs more than doubled
1890s 0.256 0.061 1.313
1900s 0.142 -0.114 0.555
1910s 0.168 0.026 1.183
1920s 0.402 0.234 2.393 Live Ball ERA begins
1930s 0.546 0.144 1.358
1940s 0.525 -0.021 0.962
1950s 0.844 0.319 1.608 Unexplained jump due to what?
1960s 0.823 -0.021 0.975
1970s 0.745 -0.078 0.905
1980s 0.804 0.059 1.079
1990s 0.953 0.149 1.185 Steroid era? Not shown in the numbers!
2000s 1.072 0.119 1.125
2010s 1.020 -0.052 0.951
Saying we should celebrate the baseball accomplishments of human turds like Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and Curt Schilling is like saying we should buy R. Kelly’s music because it was made by the artist and never mind that thing he, the human being, did. My HOF has great baseball players in it who also are decent people. I don’t go there to worship pieces of crap who did one thing well in their otherwise miserable lives.
Why is living your ethical principles so often divorced from discussions of the HOF? Do BBWAA members do this in real life? Do a-holes get a pass from the BBWAA members if they do their jobs really well? How is this different from when men used to be “breadwinners” but were awful to their families?
I just don’t get this bipolar “look over here NOT over there!” coddling of bad actors so they can be in the private museum we pretend is “The” baseball HOF.
Player A: 50 fWAR in 8000 plate appearances, five seasons >5 WAR (best season 9.2 WAR), 140 wRC+, 1 MVP award, 5 All Star appearances, 2 Silver Slugger awards, admitted to steroid use
Player B: 50 fWAR in 10000 plate appearances, three seasons >5 WAR (best season 6.3 WAR), 140 wRC+, 0 MVP, 10 All Star, 7 Silver Slugger awards, failed 2003 league wide PED test
Player A is Jason Giambi. Player B is David Ortiz. Its hard to see an argument for Ortiz without also supporting Jason Giambi. Giambi certainly doesn’t feel like a HoFer because the end of his career was a whimper, while Ortiz was a force until the end. However, at their peaks Giambi was much better than Ortiz.
The primary argument would be that the DH positional penalty fails to account for the difficulty of coming off the bench to hit.
If the adjustment should be closer to -15 than -17.5, then you can add 4-5 WAR to Papi’s total.
The actual reason:
500 bombs, and everyone loves Papi.
Keep in mind about 25% of Giambi’s plate appearances were as a DH. Also, I don’t think 500 HR matters much anymore. Sheffield has 500 HR and he was a better hitter than Ortiz, and better player overall. Plus his PED question is probably less damning than Ortiz’.
If Ortiz makes the HoF and these other players don’t it will be perception (a beloved player for a very vocal fanbase) and partiality of the writers.
The “and” is very, very important.
Sportswriters decidedly do not love Sheff…who produced 75 more offensive runs than Edgar Martinez, over his career.
I just want to thank you for all the Hall coverage that you have provided us, not just this year, but for many years.
I would be very surprised if Mauer makes the Hall of Fame on the first ballot.
I really like this article, hoping your 2020 predictions are correct. Bonds and Clemens deserve it.
Great, thoughtful discussion of the near term Hall of Fame voting. Really enjoyed your post!
Do you have any feelings and thoughts about Bobby Bonds and the Hall of Fame? Curious, because I’ve always felt that he was overlooked.
Personally, I wouldn’t vote for any PEDS candidate, but I can understand why people would disagree with that.
I think Ortiz goes in first ballot. And, to a very large extent, that’s probably unjust. Either take juicers, or don’t take them–and that includes A-Rod as well. Ortiz was a fine DH, but there’s no way he was comparable to Bonds–or A-Rod. I have a hard time taking at face value Manfred’s unprecedented “issues” statement with the Ortiz test, given how MLB has decided to use Ortiz as part of their marketing. Ask yourself seriously, of the 100+ people named in the report, the only test that has issues is Ortiz’s? Strains credibility–and if it’s true that those tests really were flawed, then it would be Manfred’s duty to exonerate the entire group.
Mike NMN – If there is indisputable proof that steroids had no impact on HRs, are you still against the subset of players caught taking steroids versus those we aren’t as sure about? I’m really trying to get a feel for what baseball fans are thinking about; 1 – Is there any way the misinformation about steroids can be reversed? 2- Since most MLB players accept that most MLB players took them is the baseball fan willing to turn the other way to those not caught? and 3 – Who are PED candidates? Only the guys on lists or is everyone from that time frame a PED candidate? Do you believe that guys who come out and say they didn’t do it like Palmeiro but unlike Palmeiro aren’t caught should get into the HOF because they don’t fit your PEDS candidate profile?
I’m not looking for an argument, I’m looking for your rationale for who is guilty and who isn’t. I’ve already presented the information I discovered about there not being an impact to HRs so I’m trying to gauge what it will take for baseball fans to move off the misinformation and take another look at whether attempted cheating not cheating is worthy of HOF rejection. If so, then what about the guys who weren’t caught, do they get a pass? Also, if the steroid era started in the mid 70s and lasted until 2000+ we have elected many players from the era already. Are you ok with those guys getting in because there is no evidence that has been made public? Last question, Mike Schmidt and several other HOFers have admitted to amphetamines and are in the HOF. The reason one takes a drug like that is to gain an advantage so how is that different than steroids from an ethical perspective? I really appreciate your input on these issues. Thanks.
Perhaps there’s no hard science between cause and effect, but the spike in home runs during the peak of the PEDS era by some players, followed by a return to more normal numbers when penalties became more severe do lead people to believe there is correlation between PED use and HR totals. I make that assumption, note that people are still using them (out of ignorance, if they really do no good?) and draw a line for myself that I personally would not vote for a known user. I recognize others may have a different opinion, but this is how I would deal with what I saw as cheating.
Mike MNM – I agree that there are some more obvious users that had suspicious spikes but here are Aaron’s and Bonds’ home runs by age. Other than the 2001 spike, there is no real difference between the two. My point is that steroids, whether Bonds used them in 2001 and all surrounding years or only after 1998, his home runs were not impacted by steroids based on his numbers. The only argument can be made for 2001. Obviously, if he was taking them the whole time, then 2001 occurred for a different reason. So, if all players using steroids didn’t raise the level of home runs and Bonds had similar numbers to Aaron the other great home run hitter, I find it hard to argue that Bonds wasn’t the greatest home run hitter of all time. The steroids don’t show any impact on home runs per year except in 2001 and if it was steroids in 2001 why didn’t they help in all the other years. Again, if steroids were in fact aiding Bonds in the other years, what player or players fell off in home runs to make those years appear normal?
Here is the Aaron/Bonds comparison.
Aaron Bonds
Year Age HR Year HR
1976 42 10 2007 28
1975 41 12 2006 26
1974 40 20 2005 5
1973 39 40 2004 45
1972 38 34 2003 45
1971 37 47 2002 46
1970 36 38 2001 73
1969 35 44 2000 49
1968 34 29 1999 34
1967 33 39 1998 37
1966 32 44 1997 40
1965 31 32 1996 42
1964 30 24 1995 33
1963 29 44 1994 37
1962 28 45 1993 46
1961 27 34 1992 34
1960 26 40 1991 25
1959 25 39 1990 33
1958 24 30 1989 19
1957 23 44 1988 24
1956 22 26 1987 25
1955 21 27 1986 16
1954 20 13
One last point about this comparison, during the time period when both players were 22 to 28, the HRs/Game were higher in Aaron’s era and he hit more home runs than Bonds. After their 28 year old seasons, the HRs/Game were higher for Bonds than Aaron. Aaron significantly out hit Bonds from 22 to 26 when HRs per Game were in Aaron’s favor but Bonds kept pace the last two years when Aaron had the advantage. After 1962 pitchers or other factors caused a significant downturn in HRs/Game. A downturn that lasted until the end of Aaron’s career. That had nothing to do with steroids but it explains why Aaron didn’t have the success Bonds did in his mid and late 30s. Bonds on the other hand began his career when HRs/Game were the lowest they had been since 1946. That explains why Bonds started so slowly and gained momentum as he aged. The HRs per game normalized and moved back to the trend line in 1994 which was 33% higher than the depressed numbers of the late 80s. Aaron enjoyed a HR hayday in the 50s and Bonds enjoyed the hayday in the 90s. Thus, Bonds has suppressed numbers early and inflated numbers late and Aaron has inflated numbers early and suppressed numbers late.
HRs per game correlate with highs and lows in both players career. They have a much stronger causal relationship than steroids! Since HRs per Game have fluctuated so greatly over time but show no unusual jumps except in the 1950s and the 1920s, I believe Bonds despite his efforts to gain the same advantage his peers appeared to have, never benefited from Steroids from a Home Run perspective. I’m not suggesting anything about whether it’s right or wrong to do steroids, I’m only documenting that Steroids didn’t show up in his Home Run totals. Spike years like 1961 and 1987 had to have occurred because something was different. It could partially have been explained by weather but for me, the actual baseball seems to be the one constant that may not be so constant. Aaron and Bonds were both incredible home run hitters. Both belong in the hall for their talent. The moral side of the judgement is up to the individual but one person had a key fact exposed in the public, the other didn’t so we won’t know what Aaron might have done to try and gain an advantage. The numbers show that neither one benefited from whatever edge they tried to gain. They were simply great home run hitters.
If Bonds and Clemens don’t make it by the end of their BBWAA eligibility, I think they’re going to have a much tougher time with the Verteran’s Committee than many people think. Those are the kinds of voters that are much more likely to hold players’ PED associations against them. After all, Mark McGwire didn’t even get close on his first try with the VC. (While McGwire was an admitted steroid user by that time, he also never actually failed a drug test.)
Deserving or not, I don’t see Mauer getting in on the first ballot. Working against him:
–Played on a small market team, so many people didn’t see him play much
–Played on a small-market team that was generally pretty mediocre so he wasn’t in the playoffs much
–Playoffs unmemorable when they occurred (11/40, 1 RBI, .641 OPS)
–A few “meh” years at 1B.
Mauer would get my vote if I had one for the reasons stated in the article.
I think he probably shows up in the 50s/60s % because a lot of voters look for a “Wow!” factor for newcomers and will judge that Mauer doesn’t have it.
Similar, in a way, to the Larry Walker situation. If Mauer and Walker were Yankees, things would be different.
The “if Mauer were a Yankee” argument would hold more weight if a certain catcher with a better career wRC+ and just 5 fewer fWAR hadn’t failed to garner 5%, in his first year on the ballot.
Kirby Puckett is a HoFer. Don Mattingly is not. If anything the bias is against Yankees players.
My idea for unclogging the ballot has simply been that votes for 1st year candidates don’t count towards your 10 overall. Then you could have voted for Rivera this year without having to decide who to take away support from among the remaining candidates. It doesn’t seem like it’s a big change to the rule compared to some previous changes. That said, as this article has stated, the backlog on the ballot is going to be cleared up naturally in a few years anyway.