He's the only one to get the necessary 75%. Others getting the necessary 5% to remain on the ballot include Jack Morris, Jeff Bagwell, Lee Smith, Tim Raines, Edgar Martinez, Alan Trammell, Fred McGriff, Larry Walker, Mark McGwire, Don Mattingly, Dale Murphy, Rafael Palmeiro, and Bernie Williams. Williams was the only first-year player to reach that threshold.
Morris finished 48 votes shy of the numbers needed for election, though he finished at a higher percentage than Larkin had gotten the year before. It will be interesting to see if he goes over the top next year or if the slate of strong candidates (Craig Biggio, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mike Piazza, Curt Schilling, and Sammy Sosa in 2013 alone) end his chances.
edit: only two candidates saw their vote percentage decrease. Juan Gonzalez, who fell from 5.2% to 4% in his second year, and Mark McGwire, who had a very small drop from 19.8% to 19.5%. Biggest increase went to Jeff Bagwell, who went from 41.7% to 56.0% in his second year on the ballot.
I'm not basing this on numbers really, so feel free to dismiss this, but just on ability and what I saw, I think Mattingly, Bagwell and the "Crime Dog" should get in at some point.
Next year should definitely be interesting, and eventually Clemens and Bonds have to be put in (asterisk or not).
"Put on your helmets, we'll be reaching speeds of 3!" "It was nice of you to give that dead woman another chance." "All right, look alive everybody...oh sorry Susan."- MST3K: Space Mutiny Click Here (myspace.com)
Clemens and Bonds have to go in next year. Have to. Any person who keeps them off their ballot because of steroids is basically saying that no players at all from whatever years they want to arbitrarily define as the "steroid era" are Hall of Fame worthy at all. And that's ridiculous.
Biggio also should go in next year in my opinion.
And I hope the surge of overwhelmingly worthy candidates the next few years is enough to let us put this Jack Morris silliness to rest. He's not a Hall of Famer, and only received such an absurd percentage of the vote this year because there was just nobody else. In the years ahead, skipping 2013 because it was already listed, new candidates who easily have much more of a Hall case than Morris include:
2014: Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux, Frank Thomas 2015: Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz 2016: Ken Griffey Jr., Trevor Hoffman
Then there are guys like Jeff Kent, Jim Edmonds, Gary Sheffield, Mike Mussina and Andy Pettitte also coming on the ballot in those years who I'm not sure are Hall locks but certainly warrant at least as much consideration as the most overrated pitcher of the past 30 years.
EDIT: The last year Morris is eligible to be voted in by the writers is 2015, so 2016 is irrelevant, but there it is anyway.
Originally posted by TheBucsFanClemens and Bonds have to go in next year. Have to. Any person who keeps them off their ballot because of steroids is basically saying that no players at all from whatever years they want to arbitrarily define as the "steroid era" are Hall of Fame worthy at all. And that's ridiculous.
Biggio also should go in next year in my opinion.
And I hope the surge of overwhelmingly worthy candidates the next few years is enough to let us put this Jack Morris silliness to rest. He's not a Hall of Famer, and only received such an absurd percentage of the vote this year because there was just nobody else. In the years ahead, skipping 2013 because it was already listed, new candidates who easily have much more of a Hall case than Morris include:
2014: Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux, Frank Thomas 2015: Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz 2016: Ken Griffey Jr., Trevor Hoffman
Then there are guys like Jeff Kent, Jim Edmonds, Gary Sheffield, Mike Mussina and Andy Pettitte also coming on the ballot in those years who I'm not sure are Hall locks but certainly warrant at least as much consideration as the most overrated pitcher of the past 30 years.
EDIT: The last year Morris is eligible to be voted in by the writers is 2015, so 2016 is irrelevant, but there it is anyway.
(edited by TheBucsFan on 9.1.12 2310)
Nowhere in your post do I see "Tim Raines", which highlights a problem; people seem to forget that Tim Raines should be in the Hall of Fame. He made a good jump this year, so maybe in two years he can make it in.
Assuming the Mayans were wrong, 2014 could be one of the best classes of all time.
Originally posted by TorchslasherI'm not basing this on numbers really, so feel free to dismiss this, but just on ability and what I saw, I think Mattingly, Bagwell and the "Crime Dog" should get in at some point.
Next year should definitely be interesting, and eventually Clemens and Bonds have to be put in (asterisk or not).
Mattingly had a pretty great peak but once his back went out he wasn't too good therefore is not a hall of famer. Bagwell statisically is a top five first baseman of all time. It's also a joke that Raines hasn't been voted in as he was the second best lead off hitter of the last thiry plus years.
Originally posted by TheBucsFanAnd I hope the surge of overwhelmingly worthy candidates the next few years is enough to let us put this Jack Morris silliness to rest.
And as I'll say every year to people like you, fuck you. Morris, along with Tram and Lou, BELONG in the Hall of Fame. Especially if Barry freaking Larkin is getting in.
Michigan against the SEC: 20-6-1 (7-4 in bowl games)
I'm surprised more people don't bring up Raines part in the cocaine trial as a reason some writers don't vote for him. There is that famous anecdote about Raines sliding headfirst as to not break the coke vials he had in his back pocket.
The one thing that bothers me about a good number of the Pro Raines people is that to build up Raines, they take shots at Tony Gwynn.
You wonder sometimes how Raines would be loved if he hadn't had the misfortune of being a contemporary of Rickey.
Originally posted by El NastioNowhere in your post do I see "Tim Raines", which highlights a problem; people seem to forget that Tim Raines should be in the Hall of Fame.
Because my post was about people who are becoming eligible in the next few years, and Raines has already been eligible for five years.
Though, and I hate to break it to you, the same reason we're finally going to see Morris swept away is also a bad sign for Raines, as he's also not going to beat out most of the people I listed. The good news for him is, he still has 10 years of eligibility left, so it's possible he can get in after the upcoming wave of superstars is done. But I don't really like his chances.
Originally posted by El NastioNowhere in your post do I see "Tim Raines", which highlights a problem; people seem to forget that Tim Raines should be in the Hall of Fame.
Because my post was about people who are becoming eligible in the next few years, and Raines has already been eligible for five years.
Though, and I hate to break it to you, the same reason we're finally going to see Morris swept away is also a bad sign for Raines, as he's also not going to beat out most of the people I listed. The good news for him is, he still has 10 years of eligibility left, so it's possible he can get in after the upcoming wave of superstars is done. But I don't really like his chances.
The same reason why Blyleven got into the Hall will aid Raines. More and more people are able to see all the different facets of someone's game and see what they brought to the table.
Or maybe finally realize that Raines reached base more times than Tony Gwynn.
Either way, I actually like his chances. The whole steroids thing might actually give him a boost, they'll see a great player who played clean. 2014 and 2015 are obviously write-offs, but that's only two years.
Originally posted by TheBucsFanClemens and Bonds have to go in next year. Have to. Any person who keeps them off their ballot because of steroids is basically saying that no players at all from whatever years they want to arbitrarily define as the "steroid era" are Hall of Fame worthy at all. And that's ridiculous.
Biggio also should go in next year in my opinion.
And I hope the surge of overwhelmingly worthy candidates the next few years is enough to let us put this Jack Morris silliness to rest. He's not a Hall of Famer, and only received such an absurd percentage of the vote this year because there was just nobody else. In the years ahead, skipping 2013 because it was already listed, new candidates who easily have much more of a Hall case than Morris include:
2014: Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux, Frank Thomas 2015: Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz 2016: Ken Griffey Jr., Trevor Hoffman
Then there are guys like Jeff Kent, Jim Edmonds, Gary Sheffield, Mike Mussina and Andy Pettitte also coming on the ballot in those years who I'm not sure are Hall locks but certainly warrant at least as much consideration as the most overrated pitcher of the past 30 years.
EDIT: The last year Morris is eligible to be voted in by the writers is 2015, so 2016 is irrelevant, but there it is anyway.
(edited by TheBucsFan on 9.1.12 2310)
Just a slight correction: It turns out I can't count, and 2014 is actually Morris' last year of eligibility. He has no chance, unless the Veterans' Committee picks him in the years that follow.
Originally posted by TheBucsFanClemens and Bonds have to go in next year. Have to. Any person who keeps them off their ballot because of steroids is basically saying that no players at all from whatever years they want to arbitrarily define as the "steroid era" are Hall of Fame worthy at all. And that's ridiculous.
Well, no...they're saying that no players who *used steroids* should get in.
I mean--if I had a vote, I'd vote for both of them. I think they both did enough to merit induction before they ever took steroids. But I don't see how a vote against Clemens or Bonds says that no one from the era should get in. I don't see any inconsistency between voting against Clemens and Bonds and voting for Maddux and Griffey (assuming, of course, that no new information comes out implicating either of them in steroid use).
I guess, but I personally think it's incredibly naive to believe any particular player is likely to be clean just because his name hasn't been specifically put in print with any accusations yet.
People don't want to suspect Griffey because they don't want to believe he might have done it, because of that playful, boyish, backwards-cap-wearing image he has. But that's silly.
I don't mean to single out Griffey, though. If you really want to believe a big chunk of guys are or were clean, that's your prerogative. Everything I can see leads me to believe that the number is a lot closer to the 90-plus percent offered by Canseco than you seem to think, though.
I would vote for Bonds and Clemens not because I think they did enough "pre-steroids" (who can even say for sure when they started juicing?). I would vote for them because I think it's obvious that SO many guys were doing it that it didn't really give them that much of an advantage. Bonds hit all those home runs because he was a damn good hitter. All the other guys who were juicing and not hitting as many bombs weren't as good at hitting as he was.
Originally posted by TheBucsFanPeople don't want to suspect Griffey because they don't want to believe he might have done it, because of that playful, boyish, backwards-cap-wearing image he has. But that's silly.
I don't mean to single out Griffey, though. If you really want to believe a big chunk of guys are or were clean, that's your prerogative.
Or possibly Griffey isn't suspected because his career generally took the shape of other great players before the steroids era? Which is to say he began to decline in his mid-30s, and lost a lot of games to injuries as he aged. Same happened with Frank Thomas.
Unlike Barry Bonds who hit 73 homers when he was 36, and led the National League in batting average when he was 39 (And 4 straight MVPs between his age 36-39 seasons). Or Roger Clemens who won Cy Young awards at age 38 and 41, and led the league in ERA when he was 42. Both of those late-career performances were unprecedented. There's more than strength to consider when you talk about the steroid/HGH issue, it's also recovering from and playing through injuries like players never did before.
Originally posted by TheBucsFanI would vote for Bonds and Clemens not because I think they did enough "pre-steroids" (who can even say for sure when they started juicing?). I would vote for them because I think it's obvious that SO many guys were doing it that it didn't really give them that much of an advantage.
Like Joe Jackson, who only conspired to throw one World Series, I don't think you can be "just a little bit of a cheater". But personal moral standards aside, I don't think any of the players tainted by credible steroid allegations get in by the BBWAA vote.
At least not until a current Hall-of-Famer admits to steroid use.
And that brings it back to my original comment. You have to either believe that at least some sizable chunk of the great players of the past 20 years were clean, or you have to believe that none of them belong in the Hall of Fame. I think either one of those positions is absurd.
Fair enough about Griffey, I have no specific reason to believe he did anything, and I'm not interested in trying to argue about any specific player. I just think everyone who played Major League Baseball during the past two decades is covered with the taint of it all, personally, and it's so thoroughly impossible to be sure who did or did not do what that it's just not even worth taking into account.
Morals have nothing to do with the Hall of Fame vote, in my opinion. Ty Cobb was a racist sack of shit. Babe Ruth had plenty of his own moral vices. I'm sure there are a million other examples that could be cited. Joe Jackson threw a World Series, which disqualifies him not because of some subjective moral standard but because it deservedly disqualified him from playing Major League Baseball. If baseball wants to implement actual meaningful steroid (and HGH) testing and then ban people for life when they test positive, maybe then it would be an apt comparison. But they don't, so it's not.
So if it's not possible to have different levels of cheating, should any player who put more than whatever is the legal amount of pine tar on his bat be banned from the Hall? Joe Niekro is a well-known for doctoring baseballs, and he's in the Hall. Since we've established that cheating is cheating, isn't that enough? There's no varying between levels or types of cheating, remember.
Then of course there are the greenies of yesteryear, which so many of the steroid drum beaters like to pretend never happened. Should we go on a witch hunt and identify the many Hall of Famers from the past 50 years who have used amphetamines and kick them out?
Cheating has gone on in baseball as long as there has been baseball. Your moral stand is silly, in my view. Silly and arbitrary.
Jeff Bagwell's plight is instructive, I think. He hit 449 home runs. He was Rookie of the Year and MVP. Baseball-Reference has him above average defensively for his career, even when they take into account how much easier it is to play first base. Bill James created the Hall of Fame Monitor test, which is a measure of how likely a player is to be voted into the Hall of Fame. 100 points means a good chance of entry, and 130 means a virtual lock. Bagwell scored 144 points on that. Unlike other players, there is no substantive evidence that he took steroids other than the fact that he hit a lot of home runs and got bulkier throughout his career. And he got 56% of the vote in his second year. Now, that's a good vote total, and he'll probably get in eventually. I sure hope that's just the BBWAA stupidly making people wait, as opposed to leaving him out because you think there's a chance he might have used steroids, in my opinion.
Originally posted by TheOldManOr possibly Griffey isn't suspected because his career generally took the shape of other great players before the steroids era? Which is to say he began to decline in his mid-30s, and lost a lot of games to injuries as he aged. Same happened with Frank Thomas.
Unlike Barry Bonds who hit 73 homers when he was 36, and led the National League in batting average when he was 39 (And 4 straight MVPs between his age 36-39 seasons). Or Roger Clemens who won Cy Young awards at age 38 and 41, and led the league in ERA when he was 42. Both of those late-career performances were unprecedented
Hank Aaron had his career best home run season (47) in 1971, when he was 37 years old. Ted Williams hit .388 when he was 38, leading the league. Williams led the league in batting again the next season, when he was 39.
How about Nolan Ryan? He led the league in ERA in 1987, when he was 40 years old. That was also the first of four straight years of Ryan leading the league in strikeouts. Ryan struck out 300 batters when he was 42.
Originally posted by TheOldMan Like Joe Jackson, who only conspired to throw one World Series, I don't think you can be "just a little bit of a cheater".
Seriously? You're equating taking performance enhancing drugs with throwing a World Series? You really believe those two things are alike? Seriously?
Just out of curiosity, should all those cheaters who used amphetamines (like Mays and Aaron and Williams and pretty much every player post-WWII until drug testing began) be kicked out of the Hall? Or is only one type of PED cheating?
EDIT: Coke to TheBucsFan for making the amphetamine analogy in an earlier post.
"Share your food with the hungry, and give shelter to the homeless. Give clothes to those who need them, and do not hide from relatives who need your help." - Isaiah 58:7 (New Living Translation)
Originally posted by TheBucsFanI would vote for Bonds and Clemens not because I think they did enough "pre-steroids" (who can even say for sure when they started juicing?)
I agree on that point and I thought there have been enough stories that came out that essentially have told us when both of those two started.
I remember reading excerpts in SI years ago, from the book that the new Sherlock Holmes movie is based on, and Bonds essentially was jealous of McGwire & Sosa's mammoth post-strike seasons and started going down the BALCO rabbit hole around then.
Clemens was on the decline and shown the door in Boston and when he ended up in Toronto he started taking steroids (according to testimonies, etc.).
Both players, especially Bonds, were headed for the Hall before they made those decisions.
I tend to agree with Jayson Stark on this topic that you can't truly know and there are just TOO many variables and too many unknowns and you can't dump an entire decade of baseball history. You have to reflect the sport's history. Leaving out its biggest stars from a huge chunk of time just isn't right.
There are people who would argue there is ALREADY someone in the hall of fame who did steroids. And the two most likely candidates if that is true are nolan amd rickey.
Im in the camp that says Every Era has a black mark against it
Segregation, dead ball era, live ball era, greenies, steroids, raised mount, dh, and so on....
I have no prpnlem puttong everyone in, as long as any "blights to the game" are on their plaque or part pf a hof display.
Originally posted by TheBucsFanAnd that brings it back to my original comment. You have to either believe that at least some sizable chunk of the great players of the past 20 years were clean, or you have to believe that none of them belong in the Hall of Fame. I think either one of those positions is absurd.
I don't know...I do think Griffey, Maddux, Mariano, and Jeter probably were clean. But perhaps the better argument is that the voters can only vote based on what they know. I have no problem with someone voting against a known steroid user because he thinks that his career wouldn't have measured up without it, or even voting against all known steroid users, but still voting for other players of the era on an innocent-until-proven-guilty basis.
Originally posted by TheBucsFanJoe Niekro is a well-known for doctoring baseballs, and he's in the Hall.
You mean Phil Niekro. Joe was probably even more notorious than his brother for that, but he's not in the Hall.
Thread ahead: Prince Fielder on the verge of signing with the Tigers Next thread: Yankees-Mariners pull off a blockbuster trade Previous thread: Zambrano to Miami
OK, I'm hitting the road, so I'll check back later. Here is the latest update. If any of these are incorrect, let me know. AND, if you sent me a proposal, I'm assuming you want to make the trade unless you tell me you don't. EDIT:
Thread rated: 5.64
#
#
