Hall of Fame: Nobody elected

[Jim Crikket]

Nobody gets the 75% necessary. Biggio comes closest.

 

I'm sure there will be all sorts of people wringing their hands over nobody being elected, but I just don't see it being a big deal. There will be elections next year when Maddux, Thomas and Glavine become eligible.

[Gernzy]

I'm disappointed Morris did not get in but I'm also not suprised no one was elected.

[Boom Boom]

Biggio will get in eventually, he has the luxury of never being suspected of PED use and has the numbers to get in anyway. I think this is a case of the writers trying to differentiate between "Hall of Famers" and "First-Ballot Hall of Famers".

 

I'm a little surprised that nobody got in. I think that the writers often feel obligated to induct at least one player every year.

[Jim Crikket]

I'm actually glad that Morris seems to have pretty much retained all of his support from last year. I thought he might actually lose some votes with a number of voters sending in blank ballots or not voting at all. I think his votes will go up next year again, but whether he'll quite make 75% is certainly up in the air. Going to be excruciatingly close for Morris in his final year on the ballot, I'm sure.

[SweetOne69]

I'm actually glad that Morris seems to have pretty much retained all of his support from last year. I thought he might actually lose some votes with a number of voters sending in blank ballots or not voting at all. I think his votes will go up next year again, but whether he'll quite make 75% is certainly up in the air. Going to be excruciatingly close for Morris in his final year on the ballot, I'm sure.

 

Since he only went up 1% of last year and with Maddux and Glavine on the ballot next year I don't see Morris gain the 43 votes need to get in.

[Kobs]

Biggio is the only non-steroid tainted player who was up that merits consideration.

[Seth Stohs]

I don't mind people sending in blank ballots IF they truly believe that no one is Hall of Fame worthy. Of course, i would have voted for the full ten this year, so I think it's crazy, but I think it's a fair vote. I think it's way better than not sending in a ballot at all.

 

Along with Maddux, Glavine and Thomas, next year's ballot will add Jeff Kent and Mike Mussina.

[Jim Crikket]

I agree that it's going to be tough for Morris, but it does seem like when a guy hits his final year on the ballot, there are a certain number of writers who think, "I don't want to be the guy responsible for him not getting in," and will vote for the guy when they haven't in the past. If he had backslid significantly this year, it would have told me he had no shot next year. But he didn't, so... maybe.

 

Biggio may have a shot, too, if you take in to account some number of voters will never vote for anyone on their first ballot and he could see his numbers increase accordingly.

 

I didn't mention Kent and Mussina, Seth, because I guess I just see them as being a rung below the other three new guys next year. I see the strong first year class, with guys who have little, if any, connection to PEDs, probably being more problematic for guys who would be stretching to get the 5% to stay on the ballot than for guys like Morris and Biggio. I could be wrong.

[nicksaviking]

Some of the steroid apologists often seem pretty indignant and upset that their guys are not getting the votes. I wonder if there are any pro-steroid era voters who are withholding votes for the assumed clean players simply because if they can't get their guys in, (Bonds, Clemons, etc.) they refuse to help get anyone in.

 

I don't have a huge issue with the results. I'd like Morris, Murphy and Raines to get in, but they are much more borderline than someone like Blyleven or Dawson who just barely made it. I'm sure Biggio will get in too, but being a 1st vote entrant is a pretty big honor, I don't know that he deserves that title. Some voters are probably thinking he needs to wait a year, just as they did with Roberto Alomar. Though I don't know that Biggio is totally in the clear of the steroid stain. Fair or not, people are going to remember that he did play for the Astros, a team with a bad PED rep, just ask his long-time teammates, Jeff Bagwell and Ken Caminiti. Oh wait....

[Willihammer]

If Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens aren't HoFers then I don't know who is.

[Fire Dan Gladden]

I don't mind people sending in blank ballots IF they truly believe that no one is Hall of Fame worthy. Of course, i would have voted for the full ten this year, so I think it's crazy, but I think it's a fair vote. I think it's way better than not sending in a ballot at all.

 

Along with Maddux, Glavine and Thomas, next year's ballot will add Jeff Kent and Mike Mussina.

 

I agree with you Seth, but I have an extremely difficult time believing that to be the case. There is absolutely no reason not to vote Biggio, arguably one of the best 2B ever to play the game with no link to PED. Whether it is admitted or not, those that sent in blank ballots were looking to get publicity. I believe the writers should consider it a privilege to vote. Both the blank ballots and non-voters should be ashamed for not taking a stance and voting one way or another. (I don't buy the non-vote as taking a stance. To me it is a cop out). The BBWA has screwed this up in many ways.

 

I don't think Morris is Hall-worthy. I am one of those against the "Hall of very good".

[DAM DC Twins Fans]

I agree with JC--I view Mussina and Kent as being a step below Maddox and Glavine. In fact, I view Mussina as a step below Morris--I hope Morris makes it next year--if I am not mistaken he has most wins in the 80s--that should get him in.

 

As to the Rocket and Barry--I have mixed feelings--they are both PED users--but their stats are so superior (I view Barry as the second best player I have seen in my life--behind only Willie Mays) that they should get in anyway. If neither Barry or Roger ever gets in--the HOF will have credibility issues.

[one_eyed_jack]

Well there you have it. The BBHOF has officially jumped the shark. Seriously, look at some of the ballots and their explanations and tell me that a collection of regulars from TD couldn't come up with better results.

 

Jack Morris to me is a classic borderline case. I have no problem with him not making it, but I won't complain if he does.

 

Biggio's exclusion is just absurd. Part of it is the "first-ballot hall of famer" nonsense, which has to stop. This tiered approach to induction is just silly self-absorption on the part of the voters. Either you think a guy is worthy or you don't. But don't withhold support because you think he's worthy, but not THAT worthy.

 

Part of it is the guilt-by-association with PED's. Look at this explanation from one voter:

 

I spoke to several writers about their ballots and found that two had voted for Biggio and two others hadn’t because of a suspicion in baseball circles that he used steroids. When Bagwell was eligible initially a couple of years ago, I voted for him, then was told he was a steroids guy. Trusting the information, I haven’t voted for him since.

Maybe the two writers who told me they voted for Biggio will come to a similar conclusion before the next vote. Those writers said they also voted for Piazza, which is troubling because I don’t know if there’s anyone in baseball who doesn’t think Piazza used steroids.

 

Is that where we are now? Disqualifying guys based on rumor and suspicion?

[Jim Crikket]

Is that where we are now? Disqualifying guys based on rumor and suspicion?

 

Yes. That's exactly where we are and, unfortunately, it's where we should expect to stay for many years.

[Thrylos]

Yes. That's exactly where we are and, unfortunately, it's where we should expect to stay for many years.

 

Well, not exactly. Here is my take:

 

(copying and pasting from the MLB HOF website, bold for emphasis is mine : )

 

Since 1936, the Baseball Writers' Association of America has held the exclusive voting privilege to consider recently retired players for the National Baseball Hall of Fame

 

Who gets into the HOF is a matter and responsibility of the HOF board that delegated that privilege to the BBWAA and the Veterans' Committee. I think that if that idiocy with the writers' voting continues (a vote for Sele, really?) the HOF should and probably will revoke that privilege and find another way of inducting retired players.

 

In 1936 there was barely TV and the writers were the only ones who had the ability to see the players in a regular basis. In 2013 this is not the case, so the need for the writers to be the ones voting should go the way of its (almost) co-current alcohol prohibition

 

That simple.

[one_eyed_jack]

Yes. That's exactly where we are and, unfortunately, it's where we should expect to stay for many years.

 

---Well, it will be interesting to see how long it does stay there. Will the voters who refused to consider Biggio because of the era he played in be consistent and refuse to consider Frank Thomas in 2014? And Griffey Jr. in 2016? And Derek Jeter when his day comes?

[Jim Crikket]

I don't see any way the HOF Board pulls the voting from the BBWAA, thry. Not happening... especially not over one season of not electing anyone. Nobody was elected in 1996 and the walls didn't come crumbling down.

 

I personally think that, eventually, most of the PED users will get elected. If it takes a few more years than it would have without their PED use, well... I wouldn't have made them wait, but hey, I can live with that being some kind of penance for the worst offenders, I guess. If it also means some of the cheaters who weren't quite as dominant (like Palmeiro for instance) not getting in at all, I'm not going to shed tears for that either.

 

I just think people are getting all worked up over nothing... or very little. I dont think the BBWAA should be the morality police and I suspect that in a few years, most of them will come around to thinking the same way.

 

If, in the mean time, a few of the clean (as far as we know) peers of the known PED users end up going in first, there's probably some justice in that, too. It's not like these guys got lifetime bans. If the mentality changes over time, as I think it will, the best of them will still get in eventually.

[Thrylos]

 

I personally think that, eventually, most of the PED users will get elected. If it takes a few more years than it would have without their PED use, well... I wouldn't have made them wait, but hey, I can live with that being some kind of penance for the worst offenders, I guess.

 

Here is part of the issue I have with this:

 

- Amphetamines are PEDs and now verboten like steroids

- Hank Aaron is on the record in a televised interview with Bob Costas (this one) admitting that he has used amphetamines (i.e. PEDs)

- Several of the guys who were not voted today were never convicted or admitted to taking PEDs; a couple of them actually proven innocent in courts of law.

 

So the writers are going on a crusade based on I don't know what, forgetting the "innocent until proven guilty" including the ones who were proven innocent, while a. ignoring admitted PED users already in the Hall (Hank Aaron) and b. (one idiot) voting for Aaron Sele the same time.

 

Hypocrites if you ask me.

 

Do I like Clemens and Bonds? No. They are A%$Iols. Ty Cobb was probably a bigger one than them. Do they all deserve to be in the Hall? Heck yeah.

[Pius Jefferson]

Well there you have it. The BBHOF has officially jumped the shark. Seriously, look at some of the ballots and their explanations and tell me that a collection of regulars from TD couldn't come up with better results.

 

Jack Morris to me is a classic borderline case. I have no problem with him not making it, but I won't complain if he does.

 

Biggio's exclusion is just absurd. Part of it is the "first-ballot hall of famer" nonsense, which has to stop. This tiered approach to induction is just silly self-absorption on the part of the voters. Either you think a guy is worthy or you don't. But don't withhold support because you think he's worthy, but not THAT worthy.

 

Part of it is the guilt-by-association with PED's. Look at this explanation from one voter:

 

I spoke to several writers about their ballots and found that two had voted for Biggio and two others hadn’t because of a suspicion in baseball circles that he used steroids. When Bagwell was eligible initially a couple of years ago, I voted for him, then was told he was a steroids guy. Trusting the information, I haven’t voted for him since.

Maybe the two writers who told me they voted for Biggio will come to a similar conclusion before the next vote. Those writers said they also voted for Piazza, which is troubling because I don’t know if there’s anyone in baseball who doesn’t think Piazza used steroids.

 

Is that where we are now? Disqualifying guys based on rumor and suspicion?

 

 

For an ******* like Murray Chass the answer is yes. Looking at the two guys most associated with 'probably used' are Bagwell and Piazza. Jeff Bagwell for a third year improved his numbers. It wouldn't surprise me if there's going to be more no votes based on career longevity and not hitting any milestone numbers than steroid suspicions. Mike Piazza first time on ballot earned 57%. Too low a number, but not end of the world like some seem to think. Both imo are going to be voted in by the writer within the next five to six years, if not sooner.

[one_eyed_jack]

Yeah a bunch of these guys will probably go in evenutally. But the guys who were never even accused of any wrongdoing getting penalized is stupid and wrong.

 

And the voters righteous indignation and finger-wagging over PED's would be a lot more credible if they had put up more of a stink about, say, Gaylord Perry. He was a known, avowed and shameless cheater.

[Thrylos]

And the voters righteous indignation and finger-wagging over PED's would be a lot more credible if they had put up more of a stink about, say, Gaylord Perry. He was a known, avowed and shameless cheater.

 

Because of the spitball?

(which was legal until practically the '30s and was the main pitch of another Hall of Famer - Ed Walsh...)

 

Hard to start those witch hunts...

[nicksaviking]

Here is part of the issue I have with this:

 

- Amphetamines are PEDs and now verboten like steroids

- Hank Aaron is on the record in a televised interview with Bob Costas (this one) admitting that he has used amphetamines (i.e. PEDs)

- Several of the guys who were not voted today were never convicted or admitted to taking PEDs; a couple of them actually proven innocent in courts of law.

 

So the writers are going on a crusade based on I don't know what, forgetting the "innocent until proven guilty" including the ones who were proven innocent, while a. ignoring admitted PED users already in the Hall (Hank Aaron) and b. (one idiot) voting for Aaron Sele the same time.

 

Hypocrites if you ask me.

 

Do I like Clemens and Bonds? No. They are A%$Iols. Ty Cobb was probably a bigger one than them. Do they all deserve to be in the Hall? Heck yeah.

 

You can't seriously think them not getting in has anything to do with being an a hole? It's about being a cheat and f ing with with the record books that baseball lovers have quoted and respected forever.

 

This isn't a court of law, what does innocent until proven guilty have to do with anything? This is the Hall of Fame, no one's on trial. Also during any PED trials, no one was proven "innocent", in fact that is not an option in our court system.

 

Besides voters aren't holding back guys who were assumed to have taken amphetemines, it's only the guys who to most eyes clearly used steroids or HGH. These guys couldn't be stupid enough to have taken them and not realized that if they got publicly busted there would be no consequence. Certainly it crossed all of thier minds that getting caught may mean missing out on the Hall yet they took them anyway.

 

They will never get in unless decades from now perception has changed enough for the Hall to call a special session to vote in these guys. All it takes is one in four voters to say no, and there will always be at least a quarter of the voters who won't budge on the issue.

 

As to Biggio, only 44 players have made it on their first ballot. This isn't a travesty, he's certainly not the 45th greatest ball player ever. If DiMaggio and Killebrew didn't get in on their first try, I'm not going to sweat Biggio.

[JB_Iowa]

Election to the HOF is a privilege, not a right. It is not something one “earns” by attaining certain performance benchmarks even if some standards are thought of as nearly automatic.

There are some players who may have been caught in the cross-fire this year. I believe that it will eventually sort itself out. While it may be “too late” for someone like Jack Morris, it is not at all clear that he would have been elected even absent all the furor over steroids.

I strongly believe that voters should consider cheating when they determine whether someone belongs in the HOF. Whether it was Pete Rose gambling on the game or players using PEDs, their behavior was a direct assault upon the integrity of baseball and upon its history.

Does that mean a voter should deny a player entrance based on a mere suspicion of PED use? No. But I think that voters have every right to both delay based on suspicion and then to exclude based on a preponderance of the evidence. Judgments may (and should) be made both on the evidence that there was PEDs usage AND on the LACK of evidence that there was PEDs usage. But the standard in every voter’s mind needs to be preponderance of the evidence NOT proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We aren’t talking about denying a player his freedom. We’re not even generally talking about denying them the fruits of their PEDs usage – they still retain the titles and MONEY they received as a result.

Using those standards, some “clean” players may still end up as collateral damage and some PEDs users may still get in the Hall but voters will then have done the “best that they could” given the circumstances to sort through and clean-up the debris from the steroid era.

Writers, as well as players, the players’ union, Bud Selig, club owners and management, ALL share responsibility for the PEDs mess. (You can’t convince me that there weren’t writers who turned a blind eye.) They should not perpetuate it by now voting players they reasonably believe used PEDs into the HOF. The museum can still have displays about the accomplishments of some of these players – and should have displays about the whole steroid era – but that is wholly different from ENSHRINING them in the Hall of Fame. I hope that the HOF and the voters step up to the plate and do the job that the game of baseball should have done 15 or so years ago.

[one_eyed_jack]

Because of the spitball?

(which was legal until practically the '30s and was the main pitch of another Hall of Famer - Ed Walsh...)

 

Hard to start those witch hunts...

 

---Nobody is starting a "witch hunt". It is not a "witch hunt" to point out what Perry did, and frankly, I would not even deny him the hall for it.

 

I'm merely pointing out the inconsistency.

 

Perry regularly broke the rules to gain competitive advantage on the field of play. Everyone knows it. He admits it. And he goes in without much of a fuss.

 

But now we have voters refusing to even consider Biggio who was never found to have done anything wrong, but played with some guys who did.

 

I just think the "KEEP OUT THE CHEATERS" crowd is being naive and obtuse by acting like the hall is cheater-free today.

[drjim]

Election to the HOF is a privilege, not a right. It is not something one “earns” by attaining certain performance benchmarks even if some standards are thought of as nearly automatic.

 

There are some players who may have been caught in the cross-fire this year. I believe that it will eventually sort itself out. While it may be “too late” for someone like Jack Morris, it is not at all clear that he would have been elected even absent all the furor over steroids.

 

I strongly believe that voters should consider cheating when they determine whether someone belongs in the HOF. Whether it was Pete Rose gambling on the game or players using PEDs, their behavior was a direct assault upon the integrity of baseball and upon its history.

 

Does that mean a voter should deny a player entrance based on a mere suspicion of PED use? No. But I think that voters have every right to both delay based on suspicion and then to exclude based on a preponderance of the evidence. Judgments may (and should) be made both on the evidence that there was PEDs usage AND on the LACK of evidence that there was PEDs usage. But the standard in every voter’s mind needs to be preponderance of the evidence NOT proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We aren’t talking about denying a player his freedom. We’re not even generally talking about denying them the fruits of their PEDs usage – they still retain the titles and MONEY they received as a result.

 

Using those standards, some “clean” players may still end up as collateral damage and some PEDs users may still get in the Hall but voters will then have done the “best that they could” given the circumstances to sort through and clean-up the debris from the steroid era.

 

Writers, as well as players, the players’ union, Bud Selig, club owners and management, ALL share responsibility for the PEDs mess. (You can’t convince me that there weren’t writers who turned a blind eye.) They should not perpetuate it by now voting players they reasonably believe used PEDs into the HOF. The museum can still have displays about the accomplishments of some of these players – and should have displays about the whole steroid era – but that is wholly different from ENSHRINING them in the Hall of Fame. I hope that the HOF and the voters step up to the plate and do the job that the game of baseball should have done 15 or so years ago.

 

This is a well thought out and valid position to take and it would be hard for me to disagree more.

 

I fail to see how keeping some of the best players ever out of the hall of fame does anything to clean up the steroid mess and I definitely don't want the BBWAA to be the ones in charge of doing so. Their reasoning is so full of logical inconsistencies and hypocrisy that it is laughable.

 

I am actually quite sympathetic to Bonds even if he is a jerk. Think of the timeline. He is the best player in the mid 90s (while most likely clean) and then the juiced up Sosa and McGwire emerge and every writer can't stop slurping during their home run binge. Bonds is probably thinking to himself (rightly) that this is a travesty and decides to show them what's what and does things no baseball player, juicing or otherwise, should be able to do. Now the same writers who couldn't stop slurping Sosa and McGwire are the morality police for Bonds. He was following the lead of other superstars, the media, fans, and everyone else seemed to want. It's not his fault he was awesome.

[drjim]

Another problem I have are those that remain voters long after they stop covering baseball. How can this institution allow the likes of Dan Barrerio, Steve Aschburner and Sid Hartman to keep their ballots?

 

Getting back to those that cover baseball would be a good first step to reforming the process.

[Willihammer]

Writers, as well as players, the players’ union, Bud Selig, club owners and management, ALL share responsibility for the PEDs mess. (You can’t convince me that there weren’t writers who turned a blind eye.) They should not perpetuate it by now voting players they reasonably believe used PEDs into the HOF.

 

Great post but I'm struggling with this point. If you were a beat writer and witnessed cheating by a player 15-25 years ago, and said nothing at the time for reason of self-interest, wouldn't the responsible thing to do now, when said player shows up on your HoF ballot, be to recuse yourself from the vote?

[Fire Dan Gladden]

Another problem I have are those that remain voters long after they stop covering baseball. How can this institution allow the likes of Dan Barrerio, Steve Aschburner and Sid Hartman to keep their ballots?

 

Getting back to those that cover baseball would be a good first step to reforming the process.

 

Sid Hartman is still alive? Wasn't he at the Alamo? I thought Barrerio was ghost writing for him for the extra paycheck...

[biggentleben]

I hope that the HOF and the voters step up to the plate and do the job that the game of baseball should have done 15 or so years ago.

 

So you're good with removing Walter Johnson and Babe Ruth from the Hall of Fame, then? Seeing as the racist rules of the game skewed the whole game in their era, they shouldn't be in, and voters should do the job that baseball didn't in that era, right?

[ThePuck]

I don't see any way the HOF Board pulls the voting from the BBWAA, thry. Not happening... especially not over one season of not electing anyone. Nobody was elected in 1996 and the walls didn't come crumbling down.

 

 

That 1996 vote wasn't because of an agenda though...