Mike Honcho 4,028 Posted January 9, 2013 2013 Nominees - Baseball Reference Here's a very in-depth breakdown of the nominees, Sports Illustrated Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 4,028 Posted January 9, 2013 Biggio is the only one I think makes it in, though I Fred McGriff should be in also---his numbers get dwarfed by the steroid users and he sort of gets lost in the shuffle. ETA: I didn't know D. Murphy was still eligible, definely deserves to be in there also. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
posty 2,296 Posted January 9, 2013 If I had a vote, I would vote for... Jeff Bagwell Craig Biggio Barry Bonds Roger Clemens Dale Murphy Rafael Palmeiro Mike Piazza Alan Trammell I would guess that no more than one gets in... If Biggio doesn't get in, I think no one does... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 540 Posted January 9, 2013 I'm guessing no one. I'd like to see Biggio and Piazza. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 4,028 Posted January 9, 2013 I like Posty's idea, so my ballot would be: Biggio Piazza McGriff Murphy Trammell Raines Lee Smith. And if you have the taint of steroids, not going to be on my ballot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NorthernVike 2,080 Posted January 9, 2013 Time to put Jack Morris in. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cribdog 0 Posted January 9, 2013 If Biggio gets in and no one else, what a farce the hall will become. Biggio was never a dominant player. Sure, he was good at a lot of things and a guy I would want on my team, but not dominant. No one would ever say hang on a minute, let's get a new beer after Biggio hits. It is going to be tough in the steroid era, but Biggio is no hall of famer in my book. Bonds yes. Clemens yes. They were the best of all the guys doing steroids, and some of the others on the list may have done them but just didn't get caught, including Biggio. Barry Bonds was the most feared hitter ever, even more so than Ruth, he deserves to be in. Christ, they would intentionally walk him with the bases loaded or with the bases empty sometimes. That is fear and respect from the other side. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,083 Posted January 9, 2013 I'm guessing no one. I'd like to see Biggio and Piazza. Who's to say they didn't use PED's either. Did you folks not see the Mitchell Report? It had guys on there that you never ever would've suspected. Face it folks, either we vote all the people worthy (based on the feild) in the 'steroid era' or we vote nobody from that era. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Elevator Killer 497 Posted January 9, 2013 Who's to say they didn't use PED's either. Did you folks not see the Mitchell Report? It had guys on there that you never ever would've suspected. Face it folks, either we vote all the people worthy (based on the feild) in the 'steroid era' or we vote nobody from that era. And Pete Rose! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 4,028 Posted January 9, 2013 If Biggio gets in and no one else, what a farce the hall will become. Biggio was never a dominant player. Sure, he was good at a lot of things and a guy I would want on my team, but not dominant. No one would ever say hang on a minute, let's get a new beer after Biggio hits. It is going to be tough in the steroid era, but Biggio is no hall of famer in my book. Bonds yes. Clemens yes. They were the best of all the guys doing steroids, and some of the others on the list may have done them but just didn't get caught, including Biggio. Barry Bonds was the most feared hitter ever, even more so than Ruth, he deserves to be in. Christ, they would intentionally walk him with the bases loaded or with the bases empty sometimes. That is fear and respect from the other side. IMO, you are looking at it incorrectly. You are comparing Biggio to all everybody, but he's a 2nd baseman and really you compare him to 2nd baseman and maybe shortstops. And to me using that standard, his numbers are HOF worthy, though perhaps not first ballot worthy(if you believe in that sort of thing). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 4,028 Posted January 9, 2013 Who's to say they didn't use PED's either. Did you folks not see the Mitchell Report? It had guys on there that you never ever would've suspected. Face it folks, either we vote all the people worthy (based on the feild) in the 'steroid era' or we vote nobody from that era. If that were my choices, I'd vote nobody then, but the other option is to make a case by case judgement and I think that's what most voters are going to do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cribdog 0 Posted January 9, 2013 IMO, you are looking at it incorrectly. You are comparing Biggio to all everybody, but he's a 2nd baseman and really you compare him to 2nd baseman and maybe shortstops. And to me using that standard, his numbers are HOF worthy, though perhaps not first ballot worthy(if you believe in that sort of thing). Really? I thought he was a catcher, no, a 2nd baseman, no, an outfielder. And he was never the best or most dominant at any one of those positions while he played. He was a good, solid player no doubt. And a great team player, I would take him on my team any time. But he isn't a hall of famer. Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle, Mays, Biggio. Which one doesn't belong?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,083 Posted January 9, 2013 If that were my choices, I'd vote nobody then, but the other option is to make a case by case judgement and I think that's what most voters are going to do. Which is stupid in my opinion. It makes these voters some sort of investitgative reporters trying to decipher what was rumor what was fact, who is tainted based on what kind of evidence yada yada. Way to much room for error, rumor and interpretation. Roided pitchers were pitching to roided hitters who's line drives were caught by roided center fielders. The whole era is tainted. We shouldn't just try to pick and choose what we "think" are the good guys. Just because a guy wasn't big didn't mean he didn use. "Looke everybody, I have a picture of Mike Piazza in 1996 at the beach without a shirt, he has no zits on his back, lets vote him IN!@#!" Just make a big plaque at the HOF that tells the history of the 90's and roids. Make a whole wing of guys who played in that era for all I care, but vote based on what happened on the feild. What is stupid is this judge and jury of sports writers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cbfalcon 824 Posted January 9, 2013 Face it folks, either we vote all the people worthy (based on the feild) in the 'steroid era' or we vote nobody from that era. Bingo. You could convince me to eliminate people that actually got caught by MLB. Manny Ramirez and Raffy Palmeiro for example. But if anyone from 1986 on gets in, then Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens have to get in. Or just shut it down for a 20 year span. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
posty 2,296 Posted January 9, 2013 Really? I thought he was a catcher, no, a 2nd baseman, no, an outfielder. And he was never the best or most dominant at any one of those positions while he played. He was a good, solid player no doubt. And a great team player, I would take him on my team any time. But he isn't a hall of famer. Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle, Mays, Biggio. Which one doesn't belong?? Mays... The others are/were white... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 4,028 Posted January 9, 2013 Really? I thought he was a catcher, no, a 2nd baseman, no, an outfielder. And he was never the best or most dominant at any one of those positions while he played. He was a good, solid player no doubt. And a great team player, I would take him on my team any time. But he isn't a hall of famer. Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle, Mays, Biggio. Which one doesn't belong?? You have the right to your opinion...which everyone does when it comes to the HOF..but really you list 4 of the probably the 10 greatest position players of all time and Biggio and ask who doesn't belong. If that was the criteria, we could pretty much close the HOF now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stewburtx8 67 Posted January 9, 2013 A few months ago I said I thought only Biggio would get in. But now I don't think anyone will get in. At least next year has Greg Maddux and Frank Thomas who both should be no doubt about it, first ballot guys. Tom Glavine will be on the ballot as well. Personally, I would just vote for Bonds, Clemens, etc. As others have said, a TON of players were using PED's. We have an idea of some that definitely did, but there are sooo many more than didn't get caught. I would just vote for the guys who are Hall of Fame worthy, regardless of steroids. Otherwise it's going to become very difficult for anyone to make it other than a few obvious names that don't have PED's tied to them (Maddux, Thomas, Griffey, etc.). The Hall of Fame is about the history of baseball. Steroids are apart of that history. They can't just try to pretend the 90's and 00's never happened. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 4,028 Posted January 9, 2013 Which is stupid in my opinion. It makes these voters some sort of investitgative reporters trying to decipher what was rumor what was fact, who is tainted based on what kind of evidence yada yada. Way to much room for error, rumor and interpretation. Roided pitchers were pitching to roided hitters who's line drives were caught by roided center fielders. The whole era is tainted. We shouldn't just try to pick and choose what we "think" are the good guys. Just because a guy wasn't big didn't mean he didn use. "Looke everybody, I have a picture of Mike Piazza in 1996 at the beach without a shirt, he has no zits on his back, lets vote him IN!@#!" Just make a big plaque at the HOF that tells the history of the 90's and roids. Make a whole wing of guys who played in that era for all I care, but vote based on what happened on the feild. What is stupid is this judge and jury of sports writers. Way to much room for error???? On average 2 guys per year get in, how much do you need to investigate? Particularly when they admit they used steroids, it's not tough. talk about the pussification of America...oh hey they cheated, but a bunch of other guys might have cheated too...so it's okay. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 540 Posted January 9, 2013 Who's to say they didn't use PED's either. Did you folks not see the Mitchell Report? It had guys on there that you never ever would've suspected. Face it folks, either we vote all the people worthy (based on the feild) in the 'steroid era' or we vote nobody from that era. The Mitchell Report revealed a lot of users that we didn't suspect. As well as a lot of guys we did suspect. No one knows for sure how many guys were on the juice. But the ones that we DO know, can rot in hell for all I care. They ruined the game and turned the sacred record book into a joke. MAybe Biggio and Piazza took them. Maybe Schilling did. But I'm not about to make a sweeping 'everyone's guilty' verdict. You can go by things like crazy spikes in production and bodily changes as your guide. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cruzer 1,992 Posted January 9, 2013 Fair or not, you'd have a hard time convincing me Bagwell wasn't on the juice. I also have strong suspicions Biggio was too. Jack Morris is the only one I'd put in prolly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TD Ryan2 314 Posted January 9, 2013 I'm with cribdog on Biggio Burin that same line of thinking Clemens and Bonds, as much as I despise both, do belong in a category with Ruth. Mantle, Mays. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 540 Posted January 9, 2013 They took away Lance Armstrong's Tour deFrance titles, they can keep these cheating scumbags out, too. Fock 'em Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cribdog 0 Posted January 9, 2013 Bingo. You could convince me to eliminate people that actually got caught by MLB. Manny Ramirez and Raffy Palmeiro for example. But if anyone from 1986 on gets in, then Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens have to get in. Or just shut it down for a 20 year span. This. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 4,028 Posted January 9, 2013 Bingo. You could convince me to eliminate people that actually got caught by MLB. Manny Ramirez and Raffy Palmeiro for example. But if anyone from 1986 on gets in, then Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens have to get in. Or just shut it down for a 20 year span. Bonds admitted to "unknowingly" using steroids..isn't that being caught? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,083 Posted January 9, 2013 Fair or not, you'd have a hard time convincing me Bagwell wasn't on the juice. I also have strong suspicions Biggio was too. Jack Morris is the only one I'd put in prolly. Biggio was pretty built for his height/positions and was often injured. Wally Freakin Joyner was in the Mitchell Report. He looked like Wally Beaver. Greg Maddux could've kicked his ass. ETA: The only reason we know so much about Bonds, Clemens and McGwire is that they were the record breakers....they were the one's we put the brightest lights on and dug up every detail. The others, who were merely really good, but were'nt in the spotlight as much didn't get that same fine tooth comb treatment to see if they were on or ever had been on PED's. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
posty 2,296 Posted January 9, 2013 If Jack Morris doesn't get in this year (his 14th year on the ballot), I doubt he gets in next year with Glavine, Maddux, Mussina and Thomas eligible next year as possible entrants... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 540 Posted January 9, 2013 ETA: The only reason we know so much about Bonds, Clemens and McGwire is that they were the record breakers....they were the one's we put the brightest lights on and dug up every detail. The others, who were merely really good, but were'nt in the spotlight as much didn't get that same fine tooth comb treatment to see if they were on or ever had been on PED's. So, Bonds' transformation from a 200 lb. 30/30 speed guy to a 245 lb. behemouth with a head the size of a walrus didn't raise an eyebrow for you? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
posty 2,296 Posted January 9, 2013 No one... Biggio highest 68% Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
posty 2,296 Posted January 9, 2013 Name Votes (Pct.) Yrs on ballot Craig Biggio 388 (68.2%) 1 Jack Morris 385 (67.7%) 14 Jeff Bagwell 339 (59.6%) 3 Mike Piazza 329 (57.8%) 1 Tim Raines 297 (52.2%) 6 Lee Smith 272 (47.8%) 11 Curt Schilling 221 (38.8%) 1 Roger Clemens 214 (37.6%) 1 Barry Bonds 206 (36.2%) 1 Edgar Martinez 204 (35.9%) 4 Alan Trammell 191 (33.6%) 12 Larry Walker 123 (21.6%) 3 Fred McGriff 118 (20.7%) 4 Dale Murphy 106 (18.6%) 15 Mark McGwire 96 (16.9%) 7 Don Mattingly 75 (13.2%) 13 Sammy Sosa 71 (12.5%) 1 Rafael Palmeiro 50 (8.8%) 3 Bernie Williams 19 (3.3%) 2 Kenny Lofton 18 (3.2%) 1 Sandy Alomar Jr 16 (2.8%) 1 Julio Franco 6 (1.1%) 1 David Wells 5 (0.9%) 1 Steve Finley 4 (0.7%) 1 Shawn Green 2 (0.4%) 1 Aaron Sele 1 (0.2%) 1 Jeff Cirillo 0 (0%) 1 Royce Clayton 0 (0%) 1 Jeff Conine 0 (0%) 1 Roberto Hernandez 0 (0%) 1 Ryan Klesko 0 (0%) 1 Jose Mesa 0 (0%) 1 Reggie Sanders 0 (0%) 1 Mike Stanton 0 (0%) 1 Todd Walker 0 (0%) 1 Rondell White 0 (0%) 1 Woody Williams 0 (0%) 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Voltaire 4,558 Posted January 9, 2013 For the next few years, the offended-by-steroids and the rat's-ass-on-steroids factions are going to cancel each other out and nobody will get in anymore. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cruzer 1,992 Posted January 9, 2013 Wow - the voters are really taking a hard stance on the juice thing. Good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 4,028 Posted January 9, 2013 Wow - the voters are really taking a hard stance on the juice thing. Good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 4,028 Posted January 9, 2013 Wow...biggest surprise to me is that Kenny Lofton is done, off the ballot. I never expected him to make the HOF, but very surprised he didn't get 15 to 20% votes(particularly in the Saber-metrics era). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stewburtx8 67 Posted January 9, 2013 This is a GREAT article by Jayson Stark. I agree with all of it. I do not think it is good for baseball or the Hall of Fame the way the voters are taking a hard stance on steroid guys. Let's face it: Hall of Fame is a mess The votes are in. The earth is still rumbling. Now let's try to digest the magnitude of what just happened here: A man who hit 762 home runs wasn't elected to the Hall of Fame. A pitcher who won seven Cy Young Awards wasn't elected to the Hall of Fame. A man who hit 609 home runs only got 12.5 percent of the vote. A catcher who made 12 All-Star teams missed election by 98 votes. It boggles the mind. Doesn't it? We were just presented the most star-studded Hall of Fame ballot in maybe 75 years. And NOBODY got elected? It's enough to make you wonder: What kind of Hall of Fame are we building here? In the wake of this stunning election, it's time for all of us to ponder that question. What is the Hall of Fame? What should it be? What is it supposed to be? Do we really want to look up, 10 or 20 years from now, and find we've constructed a Hall of Fame that doesn't include: • The all-time home-run leader (Barry Bonds)? • The pitcher who won the most Cy Youngs in history (Roger Clemens)? • The man who broke Roger Maris' storied home-run record (Mark McGwire)? • The hitter who had more 60-homer seasons than any player ever (Sammy Sosa)? • The greatest hitting catcher in history (Mike Piazza)? • One of four hitters with 3,000 hits and 500 home runs (Rafael Palmeiro)? • And -- aw, what the heck, might as well throw him in there -- the all-time hit king (Peter Edward Rose)? Let me ask you: What kind of Hall of Fame is that? Do we really want a Hall of Fame that basically tries to pretend that none of those men ever played baseball? That none of that happened? Or that none of that should have happened? Hey, here's a bulletin for you: It happened. The '90s happened. The first few years of the 21st century happened. I saw it with my very own eyeballs. So did you. It all happened, on the lush green fields of North America, as crowds roared and cash registers rung. It … all … happened. And how did it happen? The sport let it happen. That's how. Bud Selig let it happen. The union let it happen. The owners let it happen. The managers let it happen. The agents let it happen. The media let it happen. Front offices across the continent let it happen. And the players never stepped up to stop it from happening. It … all … happened. And no one in baseball has ever done anything, even after all these years, to make it un-happen, if you know what I mean. No records have been stripped. No championships have been stricken from anyone's permanent record. No numbers have been changed. No asterisks have been stamped in any record book. It … all … happened. So we need to have a long, serious national conversation, starting right now, about where those events fit into the contours of the Hall of Fame. I'm ready if you are. Maybe we'll decide we want a Hall of Fame that renders all, or most, of that invisible. Maybe we'll decide we want a Hall of Fame that aspires to be a shrine, not just to greatness but to purity. I don't know how we get there, but maybe that's where this conversation will lead us. But maybe we'll decide, once we think it all through, that's impossible. Maybe we'll recognize that what the Hall needs to be, in these complicated times, is a museum, and nothing more sainted or noble than that. Maybe it needs to be a place that does what other great history museums do -- tell the story of a time in history, for better and for worse, wherever it leads. Maybe that's not exactly what we would hope and dream a Hall of Fame should be. Maybe, though, that's what it has to be, because if we try traveling down that other road, we'll find nothing but forks and detours and roadblocks. But once we have that conversation, at least we'll know how to vote and how to proceed and how to build a Hall of Fame for the 21st century. If we decide it's a museum, then we need to put all of these men -- the greatest players of their generation -- in the Hall of Fame, and let the sport do what it should have done years ago: Figure out some way to explain what happened back then. There are many ways to do that. Put the good stuff and the bad stuff right there on the plaques. Erect informational signs that explain the context of that era -- and every era in baseball history. Just be real and honest, and let the truth carry the weight of history in all its permutations. But if that's not what we want, if we decide we want the Hall of Fame to be a holy place, where only the angels of baseball are allowed to reside, then we need to be prepared for what that means. For everything that means. If it's a cathedral, not a museum, it means we're going to have to throw out Gaylord Perry. Sorry, Gaylord. And everyone who corked a bat or scuffed a ball or used an amphetamine. And anyone who was a notorious off-the-field scoundrel. There's no place for them in this holy shrine. Is there? How can there be? Then we'll also need to contemplate another powerful question: What happens if we elect a player one of these years and later find out that he, too, was a performance-enhancing drug user? Or here's a tougher question: What if we've already elected somebody like that? I bet we have, to be honest. I know I'm not alone in believing that. When I had this conversation with one baseball official recently, he told me, with no hesitation, he thinks we probably have. Think what kind of mess it would cause if we ever find out who that is. Think of the ramifications. If there's anything we've learned from the 2013 Hall of Fame election, it's that what we're doing now isn't working. You'd never know it from the balloting, but the '90s happened. If we decide, after our national conversation, we want the Hall to be a sanctuary, we would have no choice but to expel a player like that. Right? It's either holy or it's not. So if this is the route we settle upon, zero tolerance would be the only way to go. On the other hand, if we decide this is a museum we're talking about, we could just rewrite his plaque. And let the truth do the talking. I recognize that the Hall of Fame, as currently constituted, is both of these things. Part museum. Part shrine. I'm a fan of both wings. I think there's a place for both wings, one for historic events, moments and artifacts, the other to shine the spotlight on the greatest players who ever wore a uniform. But I'm also a voter. And when this year's ballot arrived, I was blown away by the impossibility of what I'm being asked to do. I would love to be able to do what many of you are constantly asking us to do as voters: Keep every "cheater" out of the Hall of Fame. Ladies and gentlemen, that can't be done. I apologize. But what you're asking is impossible. Literally. What we know has been overwhelmed by the magnitude of all that we don't know. One player on this ballot (Palmeiro) tested positive and did his time. A second player (McGwire) admitted he took PEDs and said he wouldn't even vote for himself. And everyone else forces us to play the ultimate no-win guessing game. Should I only single out players who showed up in Jose Canseco's book or on the BALCO witness list? Or should I be suspicious of anybody who ever grew a pimple? What's the standard of "proof" from an era when everyone just sat back and let history unfold? Could it possibly be any sketchier? All I've ever wanted to be as a voter is consistent and fair. To every name on the ballot. Across the board. Well, there's only one way to do that, I think. And that is to conclude, ultimately, that the Hall of Fame needs to live on as a museum. Where no one tries to apply a giant eraser to any period in history. Even this one. Maybe you're with me. Maybe you're not. But we need to have that conversation. And we need to have it now. And it shouldn't be just a conversation between media and fans. It should be a conversation that includes everyone. From Bud Selig to the folks who chisel the plaques in Cooperstown. And many thoughtful people in between. If there's anything we've learned from the 2013 Hall of Fame election, it's that what we're doing now isn't working. You'd never know it from the balloting, but the '90s happened. Now it's up to all of us to figure out what the Hall of Fame ought to do about it. http://espn.go.com/mlb/hof13/story/_/id/8826383/what-mlb-hall-fame-be Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cbfalcon 824 Posted January 9, 2013 This is a GREAT article by Jayson Stark. I agree with all of it. I do not think it is good for baseball or the Hall of Fame the way the voters are taking a hard stance on steroid guys. I came here to post the same article. That's pretty much my take as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,083 Posted January 9, 2013 This is a GREAT article by Jayson Stark. Finally, somebody gets it. That is a great article. Its' spot on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 540 Posted January 9, 2013 Wow - the voters are really taking a hard stance on the juice thing. Good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
posty 2,296 Posted January 9, 2013 Never liked Jayson Stark, but he is 100% accurate... Bonds, Piazza, Palmeiro and Clemens should definitely be in... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mungwater 588 Posted January 9, 2013 You should hear Houston radio today, they're going bonkers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windycityguy 1 Posted January 9, 2013 Add me to the Stark side as well. I hate the idea of 1st ballot worthiness. Biggio is a HOF IMO. Put him in. Why Bonds and Clemens received so many more votes than Sosa, McGuire and Palmero makes no sense to me either. Schilling isn't a HOF not even close in my book. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
