2013-14 MLB Off Season Thread

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by miked

Yes, way to stand on principles even if they are ass backward! Go principles!

While I do not agree that Morris should be a HOFer, I am anxious to see how few votes the steroiders get. I begrudge any writers voting for the likes of Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Clemens, etc.

[miked]

I agree that those guys should be viewed with trepidation (though I would argue that Clemens a likely user was not tied to any BALCO case or similar). But writing off a whole generation because of some self-righteous view on the possibility of steroids, while ignoring potential performance enhancing of other generations (and not even being consistent with it) is just downright asshatish, not a principled stand.

You can not vote Maddux for a stupid reason like nobody should be unanimous, but to implicate him and Glavine (who never appeared on any reports, never was even remotely tied) because Sosa, Bonds, and Mac juiced is annoying and the main reason writers probably shouldn't vote.

[molson]

Originally Posted by miked

I agree that those guys should be viewed with trepidation (though I would argue that Clemens a likely user was not tied to any BALCO case or similar). But writing off a whole generation because of some self-righteous view on the possibility of steroids, while ignoring potential performance enhancing of other generations (and not even being consistent with it) is just downright asshatish, not a principled stand.

You can not vote Maddux for a stupid reason like nobody should be unanimous, but to implicate him and Glavine (who never appeared on any reports, never was even remotely tied) because Sosa, Bonds, and Mac juiced is annoying and the main reason writers probably shouldn't vote.

What SHOULD voters do then? Does the fact that the players fought against drug testing for years, and that the owners didn't really oppose that fight mean that voters are required to just ignore the whole issue and pretend it never happened? Part of the advantage of human voters is that there really is no one "correct" way to look at this (it's not like there could ever be one universal consensus about how players should be valued and how steroids should be considered), so players have to convince enough of a group of voters who have a huge variety of perspectives on this to get in.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by molson

What SHOULD voters do then? Does the fact that the players fought against drug testing for years, and that the owners didn't really oppose that fight mean that voters are required to just ignore the whole issue and pretend it never happened? Part of the advantage of human voters is that there really is no one "correct" way to look at this (it's not like there could ever be one universal consensus about how players should be valued and how steroids should be considered), so players have to convince enough of a group of voters who have a huge variety of perspectives on this to get in.

How about using your judgment and deciding who you feel deserves to be in there, which is the exact same thing done in every other voting situation for players who played before this era?

"Deserves" can mean whatever it wants to the voter...you could think Bonds deserves to get in based on how he performed before it was most likely that he began using steroids, and that's fine by me. You could think any player doesn't deserve to be in there even if it was (hypothetically) proven that they were only linked to steroids during the last year of their career and he was 100% clean for the rest of it, on a morals/integrity ground. Fine by me.

Not voting for an entire era of players based on nothing but the time in which they played baseball is not judgmental. It's a straight disqualification, which is ironic because one of the few things the HOF criteria actually states is some qualification scenarios and all of these players have passed that test.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Logan

How about using your judgment and deciding who you feel deserves to be in there, which is the exact same thing done in every other voting situation for players who played before this era?

"Deserves" can mean whatever it wants to the voter...you could think Bonds deserves to get in based on how he performed before it was most likely that he began using steroids, and that's fine by me. You could think any player doesn't deserve to be in there even if it was (hypothetically) proven that they were only linked to steroids during the last year of their career and he was 100% clean for the rest of it, on a morals/integrity ground. Fine by me.

Not voting for an entire era of players based on nothing but the time in which they played baseball is not judgmental. It's a straight disqualification, which is ironic because one of the few things the HOF criteria actually states is some qualification scenarios and all of these players have passed that test.

The problem is most of the legit HOF candidates have big home run numbers and were implicated in some way in steroid use. It'd be pretty odd for a voter to vote for Sosa and not Bonds, for example. I think Frank Thomas is getting in though. But really even if he didn't, I have a minority view and am still cool with it, just because the HOF is defined by the very values of these voters, you can't separate the two. Nobody has an entitlement to the HOF. It only exists and people only get in because this group of people that cover the game think someone belongs, that's the definition of what this is.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by molson

Nobody has an entitlement to the HOF.

And I'm entitled to share my opinion on why this guy was being a complete fuckwad with his own personal disqualification.

[Logan]

Maddux, Glavine, Thomas in.

Biggio got 74.8% of the vote. 2 votes shy.

[Logan]

Piazza at 62.2%, up from 57.8% last year.

Clemens and Bonds went down according to Joe Poz.

[PilotMan]

Nice class. Can't be upset about it.

[ISiddiqui]

Biggio and Piazza should have been in it, and that should be a pretty uncontroversial statement.

(FTR, I think Clemens and Bonds deserve to be in as well, and the fact they aren't makes it a complete joke... but I'm aware its a controversial view)

[sterlingice]

Looking ahead to 2015:

Randy Johnson gets added next year and I think he's a lock. Pedro will be an interesting case study: I think he gets in but I think he gets left of next year because of the longevity concerns and "he's not a first ballot guy". I think Smoltz joins Maddux and Glavine but in a couple of years, but not 1. Sheffield is the only other guy who will probably get significant consideration, but I think he gets muddled in with the "steroids era" players and has no chance at 75% until the mentality begins shifting with regards to that.

Garciaparra, Delgado, Giles, Percival, and others also make the list but probably have no shot.

I'd be curious to see what the percentages are this year once they come out. It would be nice to Biggio and Bagwell go in the same year. Maybe we'll see this as an opportunity for Raines and Trammel (who only has 2015, 2016 left).

EDIT: Lee Smith only has a couple of years left. Pizza almost has to be in next year, right? And I think Mussina and Schilling should see their totals start to creep up again.

SI

[Buccaneer]

Woo hoo! The only three I thought were deserving got in and the steroiders got even less support. A good year.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Biggio and Piazza should have been in it, and that should be a pretty uncontroversial statement.

(FTR, I think Clemens and Bonds deserve to be in as well, and the fact they aren't makes it a complete joke... but I'm aware its a controversial view)

And Bagwell... if Biggio is going so is Bags and it should be in the same class.

[sterlingice]

Not sure if this list is 100% correct but it was posted over at RR:

Greg Maddux 555 (97.2%) 1
Tom Glavine 525 (91.9) 1
Frank Thomas 478 (83.7) 1
Craig Biggio 427 (74.8) 2
Mike Piazza 355 (62.2) 2
Jack Morris 351 (61.5) 15
Jeff Bagwell 310 (54.3) 4
Tim Raines 263 (46.1) 7
Roger Clemens 202 (35.4) 2
Barry Bonds 198 (34.7) 2
Lee Smith 171 (29.9) 12
Curt Schilling 167 (29.2) 2
Edgar Martinez 144 (25.2) 5
Alan Trammell 119 (20.8) 13
Mike Mussina 116 (20.3) 1
Jeff Kent 87 (15.2) 1
Fred McGriff 67 (11.7) 8
Mark McGwire 63 (11.0) 8
Larry Walker 58 (10.2) 4
Don Mattingly 47 (8.2) 14
Sammy Sosa 41 (7.2) 2
Rafael Palmeiro 25 (4.4) 4
Moises Alou 6 (1.1) 1
Hideo Nomo 6 (1.1) 1
Luis Gonzalez 5 (0.9) 1
Eric Gagne 2 (0.4) 1
J.T. Snow 2 (0.4) 1
Armando Benitez 1 (0.2) 1
Jacque Jones 1 (0.2) 1
Kenny Rogers 1 (0.2) 1
Sean Casey 0 (0) 1
Ray Durham 0 (0) 1
Todd Jones 0 (0) 1
Paul LoDuca 0 (0) 1
Richie Sexson 0 (0) 1
Mike Timlin 0 (0) 1

SI

[Logan]

@JimmyTraina

Players who actually received Hall of Fame votes today: Hideo Nomo, Armando Benitez, JT Snow, Jacque Jones, Kenny Rogers and Eric Gagne.

[Logan]

Revealed: The Hall Of Fame Voter Who Turned His Ballot Over To Deadspin

[molson]

Edit: nevermind, I was reading that column wrong and though all those guys at the bottom got one vote each. Which would have been awesome.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Lee Smith only has a couple of years left. Pizza almost has to be in next year, right? And I think Mussina and Schilling should see their totals start to creep up again.

SI

Smith will get in, someone will have to sacrifice the year he does, but he will get in.

[PilotMan]

[Logan]

That's the Deadspin reader vote PilotMan, not the real one.

[PilotMan]

ahhhh alright

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Woo hoo! The only three I thought were deserving got in and the steroiders got even less support. A good year.

Maybe you covered it somewhere, but how on earth can you not think Piazza should be in?

It is an absolute joke he got left out again.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Maybe you covered it somewhere, but how on earth can you not think Piazza should be in?

He had bacne, which means he did steroids [/Murray Chass'd]

Originally Posted by claphamsa

this has been my thought on schiling... he was more of a star than actually good. Kinda like Palemeiro racked up counting stats, without ever actually being good.

If all those Yankees and guys like Bill Mazeroski get in at least partially on their postseason success, Schilling gets a huge bump there too. I'm not (just) talking about the bloody sock game, but also that Arizona postseason where he and Randy Johnson single-handedly won the WS.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Maybe you covered it somewhere, but how on earth can you not think Piazza should be in?

It is an absolute joke he got left out again.

I'm guessing it had to do with this:

Piazza admitted PED use.

[ISiddiqui]

Even though Andro was legal?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I'm guessing it had to do with this:

Piazza admitted PED use.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Even though Andro was legal?

and he had a HOF prior to 2002.

[PilotMan]

Yes, the players are paying the price and owners made the coin. The game was lifted after the strike, and it put the game back on the map. But the age old question of was it worth it comes home to roost. Take any example from the past of something being legal and suddenly realizing in the future that maybe it was a bad idea and you'll find your answer.

Look at the heat Seaworld is taking over the Blackfish documentary. Look at DDT or possibly the rise of malaria since DDT was banned. We spend a lifetime of punishing people for the sins of the past. There's always the " you should have known better" argument.

Perhaps there will come a time in the future where our attitudes will change and PEDs will all become legal, or where we will fundamentally change our attitues toward the game and the way it's played, but for now we have to judge with the narrow-mindedness of today, because it's what is generally accepted as right.

So in hindsight, while it was legal, it is generally agreed to that it was bad for the game on the whole, NOT for the owners or the players who excelled during that time. And if this is the only thing he ever did (I really doubt it) he is still going to be lumped into the argument that he benefited from something that he shouldn't have. For that, he will suffer in the HOF vote.

[Lathum]

the Mets put out a thing on facebook saying congrats to Tom Glavine. If anyone recalls how Glavines last game with the Mets went you can imagine the comments it is getting.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Lathum

the Mets put out a thing on facebook saying congrats to Tom Glavine. If anyone recalls how Glavines last game with the Mets went you can imagine the comments it is getting.

I came home to take care of something and happened to flip on ESPN right as they played the official announcement that had just aired on MLBN.

The guy said something like "Glavine was amazing in every big game he pitched" and I almost threw up.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Woo hoo! The only three I thought were deserving got in and the steroiders got even less support. A good year.

I guess I missed your bemoaned reaction to Torre and La Russa getting in...

[cartman]

16 voters left Maddux off of their ballot.

[Buccaneer]

AENueman, ever since I read Bill James book many years ago, I try to ignore the travesty that is the Vet Committee.

However, those three managers are easily deserving.

[jbergey22]

Deadspin voters were 1000000X better.

Morons keep leaving out deserving players which means down the road some VERY deserving players wont make it,

Would be a great time for a separate organization to start a new an improved HOF. It would take a long time but at this rate I am sure it would eventually pass the MLB HOF in prestige.

[Buccaneer]

A new and improved HOF should only have 50% of the players that are in there now. Way too many undeserving players in now and the least we should do is to not admit any more such players (since we can't start removing players). The voters have done good job the past 4 years except for the VC.

[ISiddiqui]

While that is a fine sentiment, I'm not sure how the greatest hitting catcher in MLB doesn't make it in a halved HOF.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

AENueman, ever since I read Bill James book many years ago, I try to ignore the travesty that is the Vet Committee.

However, those three managers are easily deserving.

So it's ok to profit from the PED's, to win rings with PED's, to manage a clubhouse with PED's, but not to play with PED's?

The business of Major League Baseball has ALWAYS been to allow/fix/adapt/tweak the game in order to maximize profits (color line, live balls, greenies, dh, turf, raised mound, night games, etc) .

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

A new and improved HOF should only have 50% of the players that are in there now. Way too many undeserving players in now and the least we should do is to not admit any more such players (since we can't start removing players). The voters have done good job the past 4 years except for the VC.

I was thinking more about a Hall of Fame where we didnt allow to have voters to have the freedom they do now to make it a complete joke. The standards could be tougher but they would need to be more fair and voters wouldnt be allowed to vote on "principles." They would be given guidelines to follow and if they didnt their votes would be removed and they would be gone.

A ballot with just Jack Morris on it wouldnt count FYI.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

So it's ok to profit from the PED's, to win rings with PED's, to manage a clubhouse with PED's, but not to play with PED's?

The business of Major League Baseball has ALWAYS been to allow/fix/adapt/tweak the game in order to maximize profits (color line, live balls, greenies, dh, turf, raised mound, night games, etc) .

If I were a betting man, I would bet that every single modern inductee in the last 15-20 years used illegal substances to enhance their performances. Whether that be steroids, amphetamines (which would help a player endure the rigor of a 162 game season significantly better) or some other illegal drug. Yes, this includes the 3 inductees today.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

If I were a betting man, I would bet that every single modern inductee in the last 15-20 years used illegal substances to enhance their performances. Whether that be steroids, amphetamines (which would help a player endure the rigor of a 162 game season significantly better) or some other illegal drug. Yes, this includes the 3 inductees today.

I'd go back way further than 15-20 years if amphetamines are included.

But I don't think it's the drug use itself so much as the way it started directly impacting the game, and the reputation of the game in the late 90s. Only when baseball became pinball did this become a big thing, because people were reacting to how the game changed. Then you have the congressional hearings and all the shame over it, and the voters want to punish people for it. Which I don't have a problem with, but I can understand how others do if they look at the HOF differently.

[molson]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I was thinking more about a Hall of Fame where we didnt allow to have voters to have the freedom they do now to make it a complete joke. The standards could be tougher but they would need to be more fair and voters wouldnt be allowed to vote on "principles." They would be given guidelines to follow and if they didnt their votes would be removed and they would be gone.

A ballot with just Jack Morris on it wouldnt count FYI.

Would you be satisfied if they just lowered the threshold to get in to 50%? That seems like it would fix most people's complaints (which are almost always about who isn't in, as opposed to is.)

[ISiddiqui]

I don't think that's what he is saying at all.

I'd allow for folks to choose up to 15 deserving candidates if they wish, with a minimum of 5 choices per voter every year.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by molson

Would you be satisfied if they just lowered the threshold to get in to 50%? That seems like it would fix most people's complaints (which are almost always about who isn't in, as opposed to is.)

No, because its not about getting more in its about the voters and how they vote. They dont consider the consequences of their actions like the one guy voting for just Morris and how just one more idiot like that cost Biggio the HOF this year. Down the road Biggio will get in but is likely taking a vote from another player that may be deserving. This trend will just continue and get worse.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I don't think that's what he is saying at all.

I'd allow for folks to choose up to 15 deserving candidates if they wish, with a minimum of 5 choices per voter every year.

I know that's not what he's literally saying, but that's the essential net result of most of the complaints - they want more people in the hall of fame. To put it another way, if the news came out today that those top 7 guys all got in the hall of fame, he would be satisfied with the process, I think.

[molson]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

No, because its not about getting more in its about the voters and how they vote. They dont consider the consequences of their actions like the one guy voting for just Morris and how just one more idiot like that cost Biggio the HOF this year. Down the road Biggio will get in but is likely taking a vote from another player that may be deserving. This trend will just continue and get worse.

But if they voted the way you wanted them to, we'd have twice as many people in, wouldn't we? Like this year, we'd have at least 7. I think that gets lost in this a little bit, a majority of the voters DO want those guys in, but but you have to convince almost everybody and all their various wacky values. Which results in a much smaller and elite class. If everybody thought exactly the same way or had rigid criteria to follow (i.e, not voting for Jack Morris gets you disqualified apparently), one, you wouldn't need more than one voter, and two, it'd be a lot easier to get 75% of them on your side. So you'd have much bigger classes.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

I know that's not what he's literally saying, but that's the essential net result of most of the complaints

Only for this one year. I don't see how Piazza or Biggio are undeserving either. On the other hand, I don't see why Andre Dawson (Class of 2010) is in. So I don't want a bigger Hall - there are some folks who I think deservedly belong and some who are in that don't.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by molson

But if they voted the way you wanted them to, we'd have twice as many people in, wouldn't we? Like this year, we'd have at least 7. I think that gets lost in this a little bit, a majority of the voters DO want those guys in, but but you have to convince almost everybody and all their various wacky values. Which results in a much smaller and elite class. If everybody thought exactly the same way or had rigid criteria to follow (i.e, not voting for Jack Morris gets you disqualified apparently), one, you wouldn't need more than voter, and two, it'd be a lot easier to get 75% of them on your side. So you'd have much bigger classes.

I dont know how you get the figure of twice as many I guess. Yes, I think this year should have been a huge class but this had more than 10+ players that deserve it which is rare.

I dont want to see Raines or Schilling get screwed down the road because voters cant get it right today.

[Buccaneer]

To tell you the truth, I have not given any thought to Piazza one way or the other.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I don't think that's what he is saying at all.

I'd allow for folks to choose up to 15 deserving candidates if they wish, with a minimum of 5 choices per voter every year.

That assumes that there are 5 choices every year that are worthy. I'm not at all sure that's the case. This year would have cut it close for me, tbh.

Looking at the names, I only see one other that I'd definitely vote for, two that I'd consider strongly, maybe 1-2 more that feel like a stretch but that I might be convinced.

edit to add: And of those, most are still well below even the 50% threshold.

[Buccaneer]

Also, I have long been a Small Hall advocate and have to speak up for that, which is yet another minority opinion.

I would go along with a more fairer and consistent process but only if the requirement is 85 or 90%.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That assumes that there are 5 choices every year that are worthy. I'm not at all sure that's the case. This year would have cut it close for me, tbh.

Looking at the names, I only see one other that I'd definitely vote for, two that I'd consider strongly, maybe 1-2 more that feel like a stretch but that I might be convinced.

edit to add: And of those, most are still well below even the 50% threshold.

Well, maybe 2... something to prevent the I'm only voting for Jack Morris and no one else in a year that has Greg Maddux and Frank Thomas (which would be in just about anyone's "small Hall").

The problem with small Hall advocacy, of course, is that it is well too late for that. It makes no sense to bar the doors for Biggio and keep Phil Rizzuto in, for instance.