Sunday Notes: A Hall of Fame Ballot Explained
This year I have the honor of casting a Hall of Fame ballot for the second time. Jay Jaffe does as well — we both joined the BBWAA in 2010 while colleagues at Baseball Prospectus — and as Jay stated in Friday’s episode of FanGraphs Audio, the exercise is every bit as challenging as it was 12 months ago. Defining worthiness is inherently subjective, and that would be the case even without PEDs and the character clause complicating matters. As it turned out, the latter of those two conundrum-inducers prompted me to drop one of last year’s selections. More on that in a moment.
As many of you have seen from Ryan Thibodaux’s invaluable Ballot Tracker, a number of voters remain stingy with their checkmarks. And they have that right. If you feel that only a small handful of the eligibles are worthy, you should vote accordingly. (Submitting a blank ballot is another thing entirely; the idea that no player in a given year meets acceptable standards is questionable at best.)
I am, unapologetically, “a Big-Hall” guy. For me, one of the biggest dilemmas has been deciding which of a dozen-plus deserving candidates will be excluded. Last year, Todd Helton and Jeff Kent stood out as players I agonized over and ultimately didn’t cast ballots for. The was especially true for Helton; I determined almost immediately afterward that he would get a checkmark this year. He did, while Kent — purely because there wasn’t room for him on my ballot — did not.
All 10 of the players I voted for a year ago returned to the ballot — and a pair of high-profile candidates were added — which accentuated the dilemma. By adding Helton, and one or two of the newcomers, I was going to have to drop multiple players whose numbers and impact on the game had not changed one iota.
Deciding who to drop was made easier by further allegations regarding Omar Vizquel’s purported off-the-field actions. There’s no need to address them here — Jay did so just a few days ago — and as I said on the podcast, Vizquel had borderline Hall-of-Fame credentials to begin with. With the caveat that the character clause is highly subjective, dropping him was an easy choice. (If you’re wondering why Vizquel got my vote last year, I touched on that here.)
Which brings us to the notable newcomers on this year’s ballot. David Ortiz has faced PED allegations, albeit primarily per a 2003 survey test whose findings were subsequently called into question; “Big Papi” subsequently never tested positive. Conversely, Alex Rodriguez was suspended for the 2014 season after running afoul of MLB’s drug policies. Moreover, A-Rod had the audacity to sue both MLB and the MLBPA while disputing the sanctions. It is understandable that many voters are choosing not to support induction for the controversial slugger-turned-broadcaster.
Despite my reservations, I gave A-Rod one of my 10 votes. As I mentioned on Friday’s podcast, the story of baseball in this era can’t be told without Rodriguez, Ortiz, Barry Bonds, and Roger Clemens. For that reason, all four got my vote. So did Manny Ramirez, who actually failed multiple tests. If you’re of the opinion that “Manny Being Manny” therefore doesn’t deserve a vote, I don’t blame you. After much internal debate, I ultimately decided that if I was going to look the other way on A-Rod, it was only fair to do so with Ramirez as well.
As was the case last year, I didn’t vote for Curt Schilling. The six-time All-Star asked to be taken off the ballot after falling short for the ninth time, which made omitting him an easier choice than it otherwise would have been. Rather than rehash his controversial candidacy, I’ll just leave it at that.
Having added Helton, A-Rod and Ortiz, I forced to drop more than just Vizquel. Victimized by the arbitrariness of a 10-player ballot were Gary Sheffield and Sammy Sosa. As accomplished as they are, I don’t consider either to be more deserving than the threesome I added.
Are Sheffield and Sosa more deserving than any of Bobby Abreu, Andruw Jones, and Billy Wagner? It would be perfectly reasonable to believe that they are. As I noted at the outset, worthiness is inherently subjective. All five players would have gotten checkmarks had there been more room on my ballot. As it was, Jones, Wagner, and the vastly-underrated Abreu — 59.8 WAR, 288 home runs, and 400 stolen bases — all got my vote for the second year running.
While I am generally not a big fan of strategic voting, I did take future ballots into consideration. Sosa is in his final year and stands little or no chance of being elected. Conversely, Sheffield — ditto Jeff Kent — will be on next year’s ballot. With a minimum of four serious candidates not returning, and a paucity of new candidates coming in, there is a strong chance that both near-misses will get my vote 12 months from now.
I also voted for Scott Rolen again. As a matter of fact, his was one of the first names I put a checkmark next to. If I need to explain my reasoning, there’s a pretty decent chance that you happened across this website by accident.
I’ve mostly stayed away from stat-based commentary in this column, for the simple reason that it would be largely superfluous. As FanGraphs readers, the vast majority of you are already well-versed on the candidates’ numbers (especially if you’ve read Jay’s detailed profiles). That said, I do want to share a statistical comp I made in Friday’s podcast:
Ortiz: 380 OPS, .552 SLG, .392 wOBA, 141 OPS+.
A-Rod: .380 OPS,.550 SLG, 395 wOBA, 140 OPS+.
From strictly an offensive standpoint, the two are nearly identical. That doesn’t mean they were equal in terms of overall value; Rodriguez was an infielder, while Ortiz was mostly a designated hitter (a position that has existed for longer than many people reading this have been alive). A-Rod’s far-superior WAR reflects the positional dynamic. Even so, the sometimes-heard claim that Ortiz’s postseason heroics are his only true bona fides, and that his regular-season numbers were nothing special, is a bunch of malarkey. In my opinion, Ortiz is a no-brainer Hall of Famer.
To recap, my ballot comprised Bobby Abreu, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Todd Helton, Andruw Jones, David Ortiz, Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez, Scott Rolen, and Billy Wagner.
The degree to which my decisions were the correct ones is a matter of opinion. As I said in concluding last year’s explanatory column, we’re not all going to view the Hall of Fame exactly the same way. And that’s perfectly fine. The debates are part of the fun.
———
RANDOM HITTER-PITCHER MATCHUPS
Ted Williams went 6 for 11 against Atley Donald.
Ducky Detweiler went 2 for 7 against Carl Hubbell.
Mickey Mantle went 7 for 24 against Bob Feller.
Minnie Miñoso went 7 for 8 against Bunky Stewart.
George Selkirk went 7 for 9 with 4 home runs against Bob Joyce.
———
I’m a semi-regular contributor to the Lindy’s Baseball Annual, and my assignment for the forthcoming 2022 preview issue is a Best By Numbers article that will include numerous player rankings and leaderboards. The latter will comprise stats from the 2021 season, which — at least on the surface — presents somewhat of a conundrum. A superstar was on the shelf for all but 36 games.
The player in question is, of course, Mike Trout. As for the on-the-surface conundrum… let’s just say that not including a 30-year-old, future first-ballot Hall of Famer with a career 172 wRC+ and 77.8 WAR would be disingenuous. Until such time as he proves otherwise, Trout remains the best player in baseball. I don’t there’s any disputing that.
———
A quiz:
Al Oliver batted .303 over 17-plus seasons. With which team did he win a batting title?
The answer can be found below.
———
NEWS NOTES
The Tampa Bay Rays have promoted Peter Bendix to Senior VP Baseball Operations/General Manager. A 36-year-old graduate of Tufts University, Bendix has been serving as the club’s VP of Baseball Development.
The Chicago Cubs have hired Johnny Washington as an assistant hitting coach. Formerly a coach in the Los Angeles Dodgers and San Diego Padres organizations, the 37-year-old Washington spent last year with the KBO’s Hanwha Eagles.
The Padres are reportedly hiring Jared Sandberg to manage their Triple-A affiliate, the El Paso Chihuahuas. The 43-year-old former big-league infielder has spent the last three years as the bench coach for the Seattle Mariners.
The NBA’s Los Angeles Lakers have hired Craig Hughner as their new head of media relations. The 41-year-old Washington State University alum has been serving as Vice President, Communications for the San Diego Padres. Hughner previously worked for the Detroit Tigers and the Philadelphia Phillies.
Former Los Angeles Angels, Detroit Tigers, and Boston Red Sox broadcaster Mario Impemba is the author of a new book: Major League Mindset: Elevate Your Baseball Play-by-Play.
———
The answer to the quiz is the Montreal Expos, with whom Oliver won the National League batting title in 1982 with a .331 average. Oliver finished runner-up for his league’s batting title with the Pittsburgh Pirates in 1974, and with the Texas Rangers in 1978.
———
Is Shohei Ohtani a better hitter or a better pitcher? I asked that question in a Twitter poll earlier this week, and the results were anything but close. Of the 500-plus votes cast, 87.3% opted for hitter, while just 12.7% went with pitcher.
Offensively, Ohtani is coming off a season where he slashed .257/.372/.582 with 46 home runs and a 152 wRC+. On the mound, he went 9-2 with a 3.18 ERA, a 3.52 FIP, and 156 strikeouts in 131-and-a-third innings.
To state the obvious, the 2021 AL MVP was great on both sides of the ball. Ohtani’s season was truly historic.
———
LINKS YOU’LL LIKE
The Baltimore Sun’s Jon Meoli talked to Orioles assistant GM Sig Mejdal about the club’s analytics department.
At Birdland Insider, Elyssa Kaplan shared how Orioles broadcaster Melanie Newman paved her path to the majors.
Sports Illustrated’s Stephanie Apstein thinks that MLB isn’t even trying to end the lockout.
Beyond the Boxscore’s Andrés Chávez gave us a primer on spin efficiency.
So Taguchi has fond memories of his time with the St. Louis Cardinals. Rick Hummel talked to the 52-year-old Nishinomiya, Japan native for The St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
———
RANDOM FACTS AND STATS
The Houston Astros had 54 sacrifice flies this year, the most in the majors. The New York Mets had 23 sacrifices flies, the fewest in the majors.
Clayton Kershaw holds the record for most consecutive pitching appearances with more strikeouts than walks — 166, from September 28, 2012 to September 13, 2018. (per @MLBRandomStats).
The average bWAR for a position player in the Hall of Famer is 67.0. Roberto Alomar is the only player in the Hall with exactly 67.0. Among non-Hall of Famers, Dwight Evans is closest to that mark, with 67.1.
Jim Kaat went 29-12 in his career versus the Chicago White Sox. The lefty from Zeeland, Michigan went 15-23 versus the Detroit Tigers.
Dan Uggla slugged 154 home runs for the Florida Marlins — all as a second baseman — in his first five big-league seasons. Uggla’s home run totals ranged from 27 to 33.
David Ortiz slashed .303/.394/.567 with 53 home runs in 243 regular-season games against the New York Yankees.
The Yankees signed Gary Sheffield as a free agent on today’s date in 2003. The Red Sox signed Manny Ramirez as a free agent on today’s date in 2000.
Players born on today’s date include Detroit Tigers legend Al Kaline, who finished his career with 3,007 hits and 399 home runs. The Hall of Famer would have had 401 home runs, but he lost two due to rainouts.
Also born on today’s date was Welcome Gaston, who threw 16 innings for the Brooklyn Bridegrooms in 1898, and three innings for then-named Brooklyn Superbas in 1999. Born “Welcome Thornburg Gaston” in Senecaville, Ohio, the southpaw holds the MLB record for most career walks (13) without a strikeout.
Babe Herman and Heinie Manush, both teenagers at the time, played for the Western Canada League’s Edmonton Eskimos in 1921. Herman went on to record 1,818 big league hits while slashing .324/.383/.532. Manush went on to record 2,524 big league hits while slashing .330/.377/.479.
David Laurila grew up in Michigan's Upper Peninsula and now writes about baseball from his home in Cambridge, Mass. He authored the Prospectus Q&A series at Baseball Prospectus from December 2006-May 2011 before being claimed off waivers by FanGraphs. He can be followed on Twitter @DavidLaurilaQA.
My exact hypothetical ballot!
Same.
It’s interesting and curious to see people not just dropping Vizquel after voting for him last year, but rationalizing it as “Vizquel had borderline Hall-of-Fame credentials to begin with.” Here’s what David wrote previously:
“Jay and I disagree on at least one player. Barring an earth-shaking surprise, Omar Vizquel won’t get his vote. Conversely, the iconic-yet-polarizing shortstop was a no-brainer for me. The first names I checked on my ballot were Vizquel and Scott Rolen.”
“Vizquel ranks 43rd all-time with 2,877 hits. Nine of the 10 players directly below him on that list — Brooks Robinson among them — are in the Hall of Fame.”
“Vizquel has 3,727 total bases. That is more than the career totals of Edgar Martinez (3,718), Andruw Jones (3,690), Lou Whitaker (3,651), Mark McGwire (3,639) and Scott Rolen (3,628).”
“Vizquel had 7.676 assists as a shortstop, third-most in history behind Ozzie Smith and Luis Aparicio. He ranks first in both double plays and fielding percentage (minimum 6,000 innings).”
“Here is a list of the players with the most defensive games at each position…With the exception of Vizquel and Bonds — a first-ballot selection were in not for extenuating circumstances — all of those players have been voted into the Hall of Fame.”
I was absolutely convinced that people voted for Omar Vizquel entirely because he gave them warm fuzzy feelings, and found whatever facts they could to support that feeling. I didn’t exactly expect him to have done such awful things, but it’s remarkable how once those warm fuzzy feelings were replaced by revulsion, they went back and found the opposite instead. I suppose all of this is normal and human and exposes the fallacy of people being able to properly account for their motivations and why they did things, but it’s still jarring.
Vizquel was a bit of a Frankenstein candidate, with people supporting him for a variety of reasons that had a lot to do with narrative. As the (extremely soft) stats above indicate. There is precedent for players like him with Aparicio, but even Aparicio was a good chunk better.
If you were voting for Vizquel you weren’t really doing so because of the numbers, unless if you were a hits maximalist – in which case there’s a good chunk of other dudes pretty close to him with better “other” numbers who no one’s stumping for.
Totally agree and I said this in an earlier thread: it feels gross to say that it if Vizquel has been a better player, we could overlook him victimizing a disabled person.
Yeah, someone brought this a couple years ago and I thought it was very insightful. You can’t use any sort of abuse as a factor, exactly…it’s either bad enough that you’re not going to consider the rest of the package or it’s not and you will. Even if Omar Vizquel had hit like A-Rod you have to come to the same conclusion or else you’re trivializing the whole idea of caring about holding abusers accountable.
(This case is a little different, because people already made a case on his baseball merits and then this came out. But I think the same thing applies here anyway)
This is the reason I’m still undecided on Andruw Jones. I’m not undecided on the baseball factors. He’s clearly a Hall of Famer on the field. I just don’t know if I’m willing to even get to that point.
Thats the part of the discussion that bothers me. If they are a hall of famer on the field, put them in the hall. Bringing personal feelings towards other actions and potential actions by people who are human and make mistakes just doesn’t seem like it belongs in the discussion at all. We can recognize that individuals were hall of fame players and then let people decide how they view them as people. Do we really want to be ranking the bad things people have done in their personal lives as part of the hof evaluation.
Some don’t want to vote for certain players because they don’t want them to have the chance to give a speech and that just seems like a petty and pathetic reason to note vote for someone. Were they a hall of fame baseball player or not?
Exactly.
At least be consistent.
If Vizquel was marginal all along, why vote for him over Helton last year?
Re: Vizquel’s particular candidacy, his problem is that he was a narrative candidate to begin with (and even a pretty weak one, by narrative candidate standards), who then up and ruined his narrative.
Ty Cobb (among others) wasn’t a nice guy even by the standards of his day.
Should he be ejected from the Hall (of nice guys)?
And the Babe was a sefious boozer…
Not saying yea or nay, but it seems to me that the character clause is rather arbitrary when juicers who actually hurt the game while playing get endorsed while others get excluded for post career deeds.
(Me, I’d test them all for halos and exclude everybody who can’t measure up to Clemente and Robinson. It would make for a very small hall but it wouldn’t trigger anybody’s character worthiness filter.)
Actually, by the standards of his day, Cobb was quite enlightened. He came from a family of abolitionists, was well-educated, and was a voracious reader. He studied the game and developed his style of play to capitalize on the weakness of opposition defenses.
Was he an angel by today’s standards? Absolutely not, but the image of Cobb as a racist monster who perhaps even killed a man have been shown to be false.
Cobb was always the convenient villain over the past forty years when we needed to point to an unsavory character in the HOF. We need a new villain, because Cobb was not the person Al Stump fictionalized him to be, which Ken Burns used as the basis for his “Baseball” documentary.
My point here is not to disagree with you, but more as support for Cobb. He’s no longer on this earth to defend himself, and for a couple generations now we’ve incorrectly painted him to be something he wasn’t.
I wasn’t talking about his outside reputationbut his on-the-field take no prisoners approach. The high spikes slides, for one.
My point is that a baseball hall of fame should be about baseball careers. Consistency, as in yes Ortiz belongs (barring proof of PED usage), but also Schilling. Not Joe Jackson, Sosa, Clemens, Bonds, ARod, or Manny. What happens on field. Good or bad.
Delgado and McGriff? Worth discussing, minus narratives of off the field stuff, pro or con.
Anything else is to arbitrary to endure.
The high spike slide thing is also a myth, and Cobb actually campaigned for MLB to require spikes to be blunted and inspected by umps before each game.
If you google Ty Cobb High Spikes you see the most infamous photo of him kicking a catcher in the gut. Maybe he advocated for spikes to be dull but it’s not exactly a myth about him spiking people when there’s evidence of him doing so.
Yes, which is something players did and it’s why Cobb tried to change it. You’re holding Cobb to a different standard than other players, even though he actually tried to get MLB to change the rules, something other players didn’t.
The catcher, Paul Krichell, btw, totally supported Cobb and his slide, saying it was Krichell’s fault. Cobb also didn’t spike him, but he did knock the ball out of his glove.
I’d have loved to have seen Cobb play, although happy I didn’t, as I’d now be dead!
I nominate Cap Anson as the new default villain.
To be the sacrificial lamb? 😉
“You can’t use any sort of abuse as a factor, exactly…it’s either bad enough that you’re not going to consider the rest of the package or it’s not and you will.”
That’s an interesting question; is it the case that abuse is a bright line issue where it’s either definitely a horrible completely disqualifying thing or not something to consider at all? And is treating it as a bright line issue the only way to treat it seriously, and failing to do so is “trivializing” it?
That’s possible to do if you limit your definition of abuse to certain obvious cases, like physical violence. If it comes to emotional abuse, you just say, “nope, I don’t consider that at all, it doesn’t affect my judgment, abuse is an all or nothing thing.” But doesn’t that trivialize emotional abuse in some way? Or, I suppose, you could completely ban anyone with credible complaints of emotional abuse.
Bright line rules are great for bright line issues. If you think that there’s never anything that comes close to the line, no problem. But I’m not sure that denying the existence of grey areas can’t be another form of trivialization. Either you have a slippery slope of everything is disqualifying, or you end up trivializing things close to but on the other side of your bright line.
Got it.
Do it either way but be consistent.
Wait, his wife has a disability? I hadn’t heard that.
The domestic abuse was one of two allegations. The other, which resulted in the termination of Vizquel, was exposing himself to a disabled batboy and forcing the batboy to wash him in the shower. So don’t worry, he’s not just a abusive to his wife, he’s abusive to anyone he has power over!
Yikes, that’s awful. I had only heard about the stuff with his wife
Irrespective of what ones think about actual or alleged PED-users, I really have a hard time understanding the “the story of baseball in this era can’t be told without so-and-so” statement.
There are all kinds of players without whom you can’t adequately tell the story of different baseball eras. There are even different such categories of players. You can’t tell the story of baseball without Roger Maris or Ken Keltner or Don Larsen or Rick Dempsey or Charlie Root or Denny Mclain etc.
Very few people seriously suggest those players (and I haven’t listed non-players) belong in the HOF.
Membership in the Hall (as opposed, perhaps, to the museum itself), has very little to do with telling history. Membership in the Baseball HOF (and for that matter, the HOF’s of other sports) has always been understood to be an honor granted to the very best players, subject to whatever that character clause is supposed to mean.
If the Hall were about telling a story, all those guys I listed above would be worthy of induction. They aren’t because that’s not what membership in the Hall is about.
Bo Jackson should be inducted into the baseball hall of fame, and Bo Jackson’s avatar in Tecmo Bowl should be inducted into the football hall of fame.
Along with the Family Guy video of Peter Griffin playing Bo Jackson in Techmo Bowl
A friend of mine saw Bo Jackson speak at a charity event. A person approached him and said “YOU WERE AWESOME IN TECMO BOWL.” Bo Jackson replied with something like “people keep telling me that!” Apparently, someone says something like that to him about once a week, and people will ask him to autograph their copies of Tecmo Bowl that they’ve saved over the years.
Frankly, I don’t remember at this point whether it was Tecmo Bowl or Tecmo Super Bowl (or both) that built the legend where Bo Jackson was invincible. But whichever one it was, or both it’s pretty intersting that the game has actually impacted the legacies of the players in them. Tecmo Bowl is, in that sense, an example of hyperreality.
It was with Bo Jackson that I figured out that Tecmo Bowl held its stats in memory using binary code and only had 12 placeholders for rushing yards. So Bo (or anyone) maxed out at 4095 rushing yards which is 111111111111 in binary. They should have added a 13th placeholder so he could get up to 8191!
Seriously though, there are actually other displays that the hall could put up if they really wanted to. I think a much more robust “steroid wing” would be perfectly fine, and would hopefully differ pretty markedly from having a bust in there. People talk about putting Bonds in there with an “honest” plaque about his steroid use but that’s not really in keeping with electing people to the hall of fame.
Absolutely.
An exhibit for the juicers would “tell the story of mlb” in those days.
They could do another highlighting the pillpoppers of the 70’s, and another on the druggies of the ’80’s.
They could call it the Hall of Bad boys.
They should leave room for the sticky stuff guys of the teens, while at it.
To further this point, when I went to the Hall in 2016, there was literally an exhibit on the PED era featuring McGwire, Bonds and others. The Hall literally does tell that story. In fact, the large exhibit with all the HOF plaques is a really bad way of telling the story of baseball. They are ordered based on year of induction, so it really jumps around a lot. Also, the plaques only have a few details of each player and of course a less than realistic image of each player. It’s a cool part of the Hall, but perhaps the least educational about the history of baseball.
It is, and should be, simply a place to honor those who deserve it, however that is defined.
This. Frankly, “the story of baseball in this era can’t be told without x” is a nonsense qualifier that has no place in a serious discussion. Curt Schilling is an unmitigated idiot who stole millions from Rhode Island, but you can’t tell “the story of baseball in this era” without him, either. Great pitcher who was the ace of the curse-breaking Red Sox.
Sure, we wouldn’t include every random player who won world series MVP because “you can’t tell the story of baseball without them”…In this case it’s not about a big game by a particular player, it’s about an entire era of baseball (and, in fact, one of its most successful). To erase the PED players you are erasing everything newsworthy about baseball from the 90s and early 00s. In that sense, I think the Hall of Fame is a more complete description of the history of baseball if it doesn’t pretend that an entire era of baseball didn’t happen, and allows in the greatest players from it. I simply don’ t see a huge difference between the “PED era” and other commonly referenced eras where for one reason or another playing conditions were meaningfully different. For example: should we discount Bob Gibson’s greatness because he disproportionately benefited from the mound height? I understand that it’s not the same ethically, but it is in the sense that “that was just the game in Gibson’s era”, stars doing PEDs in search of greatness was pretty much just the game in Bonds’…
those players aren’t being erased though…as TKDC says, they have exhibits on the PED era detailing the steroid era. Bonds (and others) are represented in the Hall as the cheaters they were. Sounds like the story was told
Only one beef with this discussion (although many disagreements with David Lauria’s picks): The equating A-Rod and Ortiz by tossing out the positional adjustment is a bridge too far. This isn’t because of a preference for one player over another….I dislike both. But a competent shortstop/third baseman who can hit like A-Rod has a lot more value. One more thing about the comparison: Thome had a .402/.556/147
A-Rod also sustained this performance over more than 300 more games than Ortiz did, despite a one-year PED suspension. Equating these two is nonsensical from the word go, and I agree, when one throws out positional adjustment to do it, it’s worse than nonsensical. For shame, David.
What are you talking about? He explicitly states:
> From strictly an offensive standpoint, the two are nearly identical. That doesn’t mean they were equal in terms of overall value
“Nearly identical” except for those 370 games, nearly three seasons’ worth, that A-Rod played and Ortiz didn’t, you mean? Tack on three decline -phase seasons for Ortiz and see how “identical” they are. To be clear, I don’t fault him for getting out before the decline phase took over. But those are NOT “nearly identical” offensive careers.
They both retired at the same age, the difference in games played is mostly from their early 20s. Ortiz actually played significantly more during what would typically be the decline phase with almost 2.5 times the PA in age 37 or older seasons.
From a rate stat petspective they might be be nearly identical, but ARod has +640 batting runs compared to only +455 batting runs for Ortiz. Throw in ARod’s 102 run edge on the bases & he was a superior offensive player to Ortiz by almot 30 wins.
Yeah, not very fair to A-Rod to throw out the extra 2200 plate appearances.
I can somewhat understand (but still disagree with) the attitude of putting in those who are strongly linked to PEDs but didn’t test positive. But I cannot understand voting for either ARod or Manny, who were actually caught cheating multiple times and lied repeatedly about it. It appears to me that by casting half of your votes for PED guys that you have chosen not to take the character clause into consideration at any level at all (except oddly enough for Omar).
More tellingly, how can you vote for them (and Abreu) but not Sheffield?
Well, people have different definitions of the word character. Me, I am personally okay with the idea that the most important “character” for the character clause is the integrity of the game of baseball itself, which is the reasoning that looks harshest on Pete Rose and guys who lied about PEDs. (But note that interesting sort of conservatism that laughs about guys “strongly linked to” spitballs and foreign substances, because they’ve been “part of the game” for a long time, unlike PEDs.)
Other people are going to view the character clause as about broader societal mores, and specifically their personal interpretation of it. And when broader society is against things you don’t think are a problem (say, recreational drugs, being a jerk to the media or fans), you’ll rail against the character clause. But when broader society turns in your direction (being against controversial nutty political comments, or spousal abuse), people who had a dim view of the character clause will start to see the value of it.
That’s human nature.
Deleted, I had the wrong argument.
Agree about Manny, but not A-Rod. Manny failed multiple regular drug tests, (the kind after they were explicitly banned) A-Rod failed zero.
I like so much about your ballot. I feel a very consistent well thought out approach and appreciate not overly exclusive
Sheff was a much better hitter than Helton, and did it for longer.
Absolutely ridiculous to say that Ortiz is more deserving than Sosa. And don’t get me started on Wagner. Truly, the third best reliever of his era is more deserving than all-time great hitters like Sosa and Sheffield? Please.
My issue with the PED guys is that there is no way to determine what their careers would have been like without the drugs. They might have been injured in a way that forces an early retirement ( Mattingly) or had a HOF trajectory derailed by recurring injuries. Tony Oliva, David Wright, Prince Fielder come to mind…
Tony Oliva is in the HOF now.
Ironically Bonds became the PED posterboy and his career was a Hall career even before the juice.
I do not understand voting for Wagner but the rest make sense.
So guys who actually cheated, sure no problem. But someone who expressed political opinions you don’t happen to agree with doesn’t get your vote.
Aside from the poitical opinions there is also that very large stinking cloud hanging over the Rhode Island business.
Which has what to do with baseball?
(Besides, KINGDOMS OF AMALUR is a great game.)
So he was a bad business manager?
He literally stood up the state of Rhode Island.
Put him in the Hall for merit but also talk about how shitty a person he was.
Being a bad business manager is different from defrauding the state of Rhode Island by using false financial projections to procure $75 million in loans.
Fraud generally reflects on integrity and character. It also puts certain events during his playing career in another light.
There is “political opinions I dislike” and “supporting violence against journalists.”
They aren’t the same.
Do you really think he was being serious and actually supporting violence against journalists?
Yes, because he was.
Thanks for the in-depth explanation.
I do think that years and even generations on, people will look back at the logic attempted by many BBWAA members to induct certain players who likely took PEDs while excluding other, greater players. Not on David’s ballot, but others. Related, though, I wonder if future generations will scratch their heads when it comes to the odd standard being applied to Curt Schilling.
I understand strategic balloting, but there is a downside. Purposely not voting for a candidate who is in no danger of falling off the ballot and rewarding that vote to another player who is closer to falling off can be problematic. Narrative and momentum are both important to elect players. If we withdraw votes from some players, they may appear to lose momentum, which will feed a narrative heading into the next election. If a player is in danger of falling off the ballot, they’re likely doomed anyway, so perhaps it’s better to focus on trying to build momentum for other players higher up in the voting. If not, we’ll end up keeping a multiple weak candidates on the ballot instead getting behind one or two. So, yes, I understand strategic balloting, but maybe the strategy should be applied 180 degrees opposite.
I guess my philosophy is simply vote for the best players. The suspected and known PED guys have had their stats, in essence, sanctioned by MLB. None have been removed from the record books, no asterisks applied. The players themselves haven’t been put on the ineligible list. They and their stats are viewed as ballot worthy.
If they have the stats, vote for them.
“I wonder if future generations will scratch their heads when it comes to the odd standard being applied to Curt Schilling. ”
Probably, because I hope for the sake of the species future generations are wise enough to be bemused by the social media thrall under which our current generations live.
Pendulums swing both ways and extremes don’t last. (C.F. McCartyism.)
Nuance and moderation prevails eventually.
Sheffield was a far greater player than Helton, who was merely a somewhat better than average hitter when away from the thin air of Coors and that is a real-world issue that voters have to address. Sheffield’s 509 homers and .907 lifetime OPS are Hall of Fame numbers by any standard. By the way, in 49 games in Denver, his OPS was 1.159. Just imagine if he had played half his games there.
But…Sheffield is tied to PEDs! (While we will induct Ortiz because he is cuddly)
If Ortiz and A-Rod can get in, Sheffield deserves to be there. So does Palmeiro. If you’re going to vote for some juicers with worthy Hall numbers, you’ve got to vote for them all. Back to Helton, give him credit for not cheating if he was clean but penalize him for only excelling in a freak ballpark. He was nothing special away from Coors.
I think there is a bright line between the “anything goes” era of PEDs and the “it was explicitly against the rules” era. Manny and ARod fall into the latter.
The ones I find maddening are the speculative ones, because those aren’t even a little uniformly applied. Bagwell and Piazza waited a couple years, mostly on the argument that they simply hit a lot of homers at the wrong time, while Ortiz is going to waltz through. And I don’t hate Ortiz! I think his candidacy is a bit overrated, particularly in light of the struggles of other PED players as well as the prolonged candidacy of Edgar, who along with Frank Thomas and maybe at Thome are in an echolon above in terms of all time DHs
ARod did it 20% more than Oritz as well. That can’t be discounted. The extra 2000 PA mean something. It’s not just position, it’s volume.
And the juice.
Yes, but we’re comparing two players who juiced.
Yes for cheaters.
You’re disgusting person.
TWrong
Awesome ballot dude
“no-brainer” is a vastly overused word. To say that David Ortiz and Omar Vizquel are “no brainer” HOF picks is lazy writing. A vote for Greg Maddux is a no brainer. Anyone who says he would vote for Omar Vizquel without looking up his stats and thinking hard about him is being disingenuous.
Dwight Evans: I am shocked he has 67 WAR. When he played did many people consider him to be a HOFer? He was 39 in his final season in 1991. In 329 plate appearances he hit: .270/.393/.378 for an OPS+ of 119. That probably looks better today than in 1991. Especially since he only hit 6 homers.
I see that Baltimore released him in spring training in 1992. I don’t know what his spring training stats were, but I would think that he would have gotten more of a chance today, even though there are so few 40 year old non-pitchers today.
Lou Whitaker has a similar case. In part time duty in his final season, he hit really well. I don’t know why he didn’t continue.
Both candidates for a committee.
Hopefully while still alive.
Only a fool would say that voting for Omar Vizquel and David Ortiz is a no brainer.
Only a fool would downvote my comment.
“The story of baseball in this era can’t be told without Rodriguez, Ortiz, Barry Bonds, and Roger Clemens. For that reason, all four got my vote.”
But it can be told without Schilling….?
I can totally understand and appreciate your reasons for wanting to exclude Schilling, but not against the logic used above. The moral gerrymandering among BWAA voters has become exhausting over time.
If they can reboot Sex and the City without Samantha, you can certainly tell the story of baseball without Schilling.
In all seriousness, I think that Schilling fails the bedtime story test. Certainly more than those other 4.
“Hey Scooter, did you know that Alex Rodriguez fraudulently sued multiple organizations to cover his own criminal behavior? Not only that, but he knowingly cheated by enhancing his body in a way that gave him an advantage over his peers? He did however hit a shit ton of home runs, so it’s OK that he did those terrible things. Anyways, have a good night buddy!”
Schilling: 6x All-Star, WS MVP, NCLS MVP, 3000 Ks
Ortiz: 10x All-Star, 7x Silver Slugger, WS MVP, ALCS MVP, over 500 HRs
A-Rod: 3x MVP, 14x All-Star, 2x Gold Glover, 10x Silver Slugger, a batting title, 3000 hits, 600 HRs,
Barry Bonds: 7x MVP, 14x All-Star, 8x Gold Glover, 12x Silver Slugger, 2x Batting title, single season home run record, career records in HR, walks, and intentional walks
Roger Clemens: MVP award, 7x Cy Young, 2x pitching triple crown, 11x All-Star, 7x ERA title, 354 wins, 4672 Ks,
I was originally going to compare him to Tom Glavine, but then I saw his award line:
Glavine: 2x Cy Young, 10x All-Star, 4x Silver Slugger, WS MVP, 305 wins, and highest WAR by a pitcher in 1991.
Frankly, Schilling is like a slightly less valuable Mike Mussina. The story of baseball in this era can be told without Mussina. It can also be told without Schilling.
The story of baseball can’t be told without A-Rod so he deserves to be in the HoF.
A-Rod failed multiple tests.
Manny failed multiple tests.
Therefore, even though Manny isn’t absolutely required for the story of baseball (at least not as much as A-Rod or Bonds), he deserves to be in the HoF because of fairness?
I don’t see how this is functionally different from simply ignoring all PED infractions.
You’re saying you can’t tell the story of baseball without the steroid guys which I understand. Can you tell the story of this era without Schilling? Dropping Vizquel for character issues because he’s a borderline candidate is something I get but Schilling is far from a borderline candidate. Out of guys with no PED connections he’s by far the most qualified candidate.