Who Do You Think Merits Cooperstown fr. Today's Candid'ts?

[26mi235]

A lot of people hammered the former Baseball writer that still gets a vote because he is not (and will not) vote for those with the PEDs issues. Then, a lot of other guys (half the voters) do the same. I think that enough of the writers said 'no' that those that are complaining are doing so less vociferously and others had their positions adjusted.

[Conor Dary]

A lot of people hammered the former Baseball writer that still gets a vote because he is not (and will not) vote for those with the PEDs issues. Then, a lot of other guys (half the voters) do the same. I think that enough of the writers said 'no' that those that are complaining are doing so less vociferously and others had their positions adjusted.

There are about 10! voters on the Chicago Tribune staff , who get to vote on the HoF. And that is pretty much the attitude of all of them, with Phil Hersh leading the way.

Oh, the joy I will have snubbing Sosa, Bonds and Clemens (plus McGwire and Palmeiro, natch) on my HoF ballot.

Why these guys, who have no connection with the game anymore, still get to vote is nutty.

[jazzcyclist]

There are about 10! voters on the Chicago Tribune staff , who get to vote on the HoF. And that is pretty much the attitude of all of them, with Phil Hersh leading the way.

Oh, the joy I will have snubbing Sosa, Bonds and Clemens (plus McGwire and Palmeiro, natch) on my HoF ballot.

Why these guys, who have no connection with the game anymore, still get to vote is nutty.

I put Palmeiro in a different category than the other folks since he doped after MLB instituted its PED enforcement policy in 2003. If I had to draw the line, I would draw at folks who actually broke existing rules and it would look like this:

Players and managers who bet on baseball
Doctored bat users
Post-1920 spitball throwers
Post-2003 illegal PED users

By the way, here's an interesting bit of history about the spitball:

following the 1920 season, the spitball was banned leaguewide, except for existing spitballers who were grandfathered in and allowed to keep throwing the pitch legally until they retired. Seventeen existing spitballers were granted this exemption. Burleigh Grimes lasted the longest, retiring in 1934. The complete list: Doc Ayers (played through 1921); Ray Caldwell (1921); Stan Coveleski (1928); Bill Doak (1929); Phil Douglas (1922); Red Faber (1933); Dana Fillingim (1925); Ray Fisher (1920); Marv Goodwin (1925); Dutch Leonard (1925); Clarence Mitchell (1932); Jack Quinn (1933); Allen Russell (1925); Dick Rudolph (1927); Urban Shocker (1928); and Allen Sothoron (1926).

[gh]

What do these (very recognizable) names have in common: Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, Honus Wagner and Babe Ruth.

They're baseball's first HOF class, of course (what?! No Cy Young?!). And while I think the Cooperstown people have done the HOF thing better than anyone else through the years, it makes me absolutely nuts that nobody, not even these 5 gods, got a perfect score. And nobody has since.

It sometimes makes me wonder if the fix isn't in somehow. In nearly all the years since, right up until today, there are people (leaving out anomalous years like this one) where somebody is a slam-dunk choice. But by now there's obviously an unwritten code that nobody will ever get a perfect score, so how do they decide who doesn't vote for him? If they leave it open to chance, then we could see a scenario whereby a Willie Mays doesn't get in on the first year because 26% of the voters decide they'll be the ones who vote no to ensure the no-perfects.

This may kind of sound like a wandering away from the main thrust of the current thread, but I bring it up because I wonder if a "significant" number of voters are of the mind that Bonds, et al, do belong in, but because of the suspicion, don't belong in on the first year. An extension of the no-perfect-vote way of thinking. So next year, the numbers will jump way up.

Obviously, time will tell.

[Master Po]

Agree w jazz's ideas about using "who broke existing rules" as the way to draw the lines. Makes good sense (and thus will never be implemented...)

Also agree w gh about the HoF voting practices -- I just learned this earlier this week when someone on ESPN was going on about the fact that no one -- not even greats such as Aaron -- gets 100%. That seems weird to me, and compromises whatever bit of integrity I might wish to attribute to the process.

[Conor Dary]

What do these (very recognizable) names have in common: Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, Honus Wagner and Babe Ruth.

They're baseball's first HOF class, of course (what?! No Cy Young?!). And while I think the Cooperstown people have done the HOF thing better than anyone else through the years, it makes me absolutely nuts that nobody, not even these 5 gods, got a perfect score. And nobody has since.

It sometimes makes me wonder if the fix isn't in somehow. In nearly all the years since, right up until today, there are people (leaving out anomalous years like this one) where somebody is a slam-dunk choice. But by now there's obviously an unwritten code that nobody will ever get a perfect score, so how do they decide who doesn't vote for him? If they leave it open to chance, then we could see a scenario whereby a Willie Mays doesn't get in on the first year because 26% of the voters decide they'll be the ones who vote no to ensure the no-perfects.

This may kind of sound like a wandering away from the main thrust of the current thread, but I bring it up because I wonder if a "significant" number of voters are of the mind that Bonds, et al, do belong in, but because of the suspicion, don't belong in on the first year. An extension of the no-perfect-vote way of thinking. So next year, the numbers will jump way up.

Obviously, time will tell.

As for the HoFs I think the NFL gets it much better. Or at least it does seem to have quite the prima donnas running the show. And the knucklehead baseball voters have been there quite a while.

In 1971, when Yogi Berra made his debut on the ballot, he collected only two-thirds of the vote. That’s right — 118 of 360 writers did not vote for Berra as soon as they had the chance. Fifteen players on that 1971 ballot eventually made it to Cooperstown, but that year, the voters could not reach a three-quarters consensus on any of them.

After all, 23 lunkheads left Willie Mays off their ballot. Forty-three did not vote for Mickey Mantle. Sixteen did not vote for Mike Schmidt. Even Tom Seaver, whose percentage of 98.8 is the highest in history, was deemed unworthy by five curmudgeons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/sport ... .html?_r=0

[Dutra5]

Gaylord Perry made a career out of "does he or doesn't he" and the writers and broadcasters were willing participants in promoting the fact that he may be doctoring the baseball in some fashion.

He was elected in part because of his celebrity within the game along these lines.

Now we have writers either hiding information they have on the players....likely an issue in the 90's when it became apparent to anyone who knew anything about steroids long before anything was out in th open....or are simply making blind guesses as to who used and who didn't.

Amphetamines are banned these days. Willie Mays is known, at least in some writings, of using greenies during his day. Maybe we should kick all those guys out as well.

[bambam]

As for the HoFs I think the NFL gets it much better.

But the NFL HoF has a set number. Every year they let in 5 (?6) people, whether they are deserving or not, or whether or not 10 are deserving. Not sure that is better.

[Conor Dary]

As for the HoFs I think the NFL gets it much better.

But the NFL HoF has a set number. Every year they let in 5 (?6) people, whether they are deserving or not, or whether or not 10 are deserving. Not sure that is better.

Perhaps, but I can't think of any recent inductees that were not up to par. I have been to Canton and I think they do a good job. But the main point is they don't seem to treat it like some holy shrine like baseball. A few guys are guaranteed to get in and I think that is fine.

And then we have the baseball writers, and the HoFamers especially, who all seem to act like it is the College of Cardinals. The sanctimonious of it all is compete crap. And then they hang these guys on and on for years. The Ron Santo case was the worse. Here the guy was in his 60's, lost both legs to diabetes and yet he was still going through this popularity contest year in and year out. It was quite disgusting. And they finally vote him in when he is dead. I really wish one of these guys like Clemens or Bonds would just say, FU to it all...

[dj]

With the Santo case you are confusing what the BBWAA did (not elect him in 15 tries) with what the most recent incarnation of the HoF Veterans' Committee did.

The two are very different sets of electors, with separate and different procedures, the VC acting more along the lines of the NFL HoF committee.

[Dutra5]

As for the HoFs I think the NFL gets it much better.

But the NFL HoF has a set number. Every year they let in 5 (?6) people, whether they are deserving or not, or whether or not 10 are deserving. Not sure that is better.

This isn't true. They can let in between 4 and 7 including up to 2 from the Veterans Committee.

[Conor Dary]

With the Santo case you are confusing what the BBWAA did (not elect him in 15 tries) with what the most recent incarnation of the HoF Veterans' Committee did.

The two are very different sets of electors, with separate and different procedures, the VC acting more along the lines of the NFL HoF committee.

Yes, I realize the difference. I suppose I didn't make that clear. As for the VC it has changed quite a bit over the years. And I know, because it was a yearly topic in Chicago as to whether the change would benefit Santo or not. And every year it was not. But no matter what it was it came down to a popularity contest. I suppose the NFL's HoF is similar but it really doesn't seem to have all the drama involved. And I think it is because they always pick a minimum each year. Here are the candidates, pick the best. Meanwhile BB has this only-the-worthy-are-invited attitude.

[Dutra5]

With the Santo case you are confusing what the BBWAA did (not elect him in 15 tries) with what the most recent incarnation of the HoF Veterans' Committee did.

The two are very different sets of electors, with separate and different procedures, the VC acting more along the lines of the NFL HoF committee.

Yes, I realize the difference. I suppose I didn't make that clear. As for the VC it has changed quite a bit over the years. And I know, because it was a yearly topic in Chicago as to whether the change would benefit Santo or not. And every year it was not. But no matter what it was it came down to a popularity contest. I suppose the NFL's HoF is similar but it really doesn't seem to have all the drama involved. And I think it is because they always pick a minimum each year. Here are the candidates, pick the best. Meanwhile BB has this only-the-worthy-are-invited attitude.

The NFLs vote is more of a caucus with a writer standing before the committee and stumping for a finalist. The NFL election process is, I think, much more difficult because it's harder to relate a guy like Larry Allen with a guy such as Chris Carter wheras in baseball there are stats for everything.

[scottmitchell74]

I LOVE Donnnie Baseball, but he only posted the three Gehrig-like wow years from '83-'85. Not sure why.

He had back problems that plagued him and really sapped his power, and eventually sapped his ability to even field well.

[Halfmiler2]

re the above, anytime any degree of subjectivity gets involved there is the potential for small, medium, or huge doses of miscarriages of justice.

I do not remember the exact year or the particulars, but one year Ted Williams narrowly, repeat narrowly, missed winning the AL MVP... all because ONE VOTER did not even place him in the top 10. If he had voted for him perhaps as high as 3rd or 4th he would have won... and he had more 1st place votes than the winner, maybe it was DiMaggio, not sure. Ridiculous. If anyone knows the particulars on this I'd be interested.

The year was 1947, DiMaggio got 202 points, Williams had 201. One of the 24 voters did not list Williams on his ballot, and a 10th-place (on a 10-slot ballot, scored 14-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1) would have given Williams a tie.

The only problem with the story is that three voters left DiMaggio of their ballots.

As for first-place votes, DiMaggio had eight, Williams only three--from the three Boston writers. Yankee relief pitcher had seven firsts to also beat Williams on that score.

To me the bigger injustice was giving DiMaggio the MVP over Williams in 1941 when the voting was not as close. That was the year that WIlliams hit .406 and DiMaggio had the 56-game hitting streak. But I think I read somewhere that DiMaggio only hit about .430 during the hitting streak itself and any hitting streak is of somewhat limited value in my view. WIlliams had an OPS over 200 points higher than DiMaggio in that year.

As to the original topic of the thread, I am disappointed that Piazza did not get in the HOF this year.

[tandfman]

Getting back to the PED issue, I just came across this piece, which I don't think I agree with.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheo ... s-baseball

[gh]

The conclusion resonates with me


<< But there are few worse crimes for a museum than whitewashing history, which is what leaving them out entirely would amount to.>>

[Marlow]

The conclusion resonates with me
<< But there are few worse crimes for a museum than whitewashing history, which is what leaving them out entirely would amount to.>>

So we're supposed to have a Hall of Shame? Yes, there should be a plaque somewhere in there (the men's room?) that describes the impact that PEDs have had on the game, but wouldn't anyone going to Cooperstown understand that even without the plaque? This is not like a history or art museum where most people are encountering things they had no idea about.

[jazzcyclist]

So we're supposed to have a Hall of Shame? Yes, there should be a plaque somewhere in there (the men's room?) that describes the impact that PEDs have had on the game, but wouldn't anyone going to Cooperstown understand that even without the plaque? This is not like a history or art museum where most people are encountering things they had no idea about.

If there's going to be a steroid plaque, there should also be an amphetamine plaque, a spitball plaque, a corked bat plaque, etc. And the PED plaques should also distinguish between the post-2003 PED users and the pre-2003 PED users. One thing that I find ironoc is that MLB grandfathered in the spitball ban, allowing that era's current spitballers to continue using that pitch until they retired, while the baseball writers have retroactively banned steroid users.

[26mi235]

I suspect that eventually Bonds and Clemens will get in but that Sosa will not, and neither will McGuire; the latter two being judged to have been helped across the finish line by such methods.

I think that the rule on spitballs is inapt; They decided to take it out of the game, which the method did, without ruining the career of those who had developed their skill set that way. I might have been a necessary compromise to get the ban effected. Conversely, I do not think that much of anyone did not think that using steroids was cheating and in a major way. These guys also knew that they were not leveling the playing field, they were standing on a stool compared to a substantial fraction of their competitors. Furthermore, despite substantial evidence, they refuse to allocute to their conduct.

[jazzcyclist]

Conversely, I do not think that much of anyone did not think that using steroids was cheating and in a major way. These guys also knew that they were not leveling the playing field, they were standing on a stool compared to a substantial fraction of their competitors. Furthermore, despite substantial evidence, they refuse to allocute to their conduct.

I don't see why anyone would call steroid use cheating before 2003, since just like amphetamine use, it was available to everybody without fear of being sanctioned by MLB. And I don't know what you mean by allocute, but most of the bigger names (eg. McGuire, Giambi, Pettitte, Rodriguez, Canseco, etc.) have admitted what they did.

[Pego]

So we're supposed to have a Hall of Shame? Yes, there should be a plaque somewhere in there (the men's room?) that describes the impact that PEDs have had on the game, but wouldn't anyone going to Cooperstown understand that even without the plaque? This is not like a history or art museum where most people are encountering things they had no idea about.

If there's going to be a steroid plaque, there should also be an amphetamine plaque, a spitball plaque, a corked bat plaque, etc. And the PED plaques should also distinguish between the post-2003 PED users and the pre-2003 PED users. One thing that I find ironoc is that MLB grandfathered in the spitball ban, allowing that era's current spitballers to continue using that pitch until they retired, while the baseball writers have retroactively banned steroid users.

Yes to all jc's points.

[26mi235]

Conversely, I do not think that much of anyone did not think that using steroids was cheating and in a major way. These guys also knew that they were not leveling the playing field, they were standing on a stool compared to a substantial fraction of their competitors. Furthermore, despite substantial evidence, they refuse to allocute to their conduct.

I don't see why anyone would call steroid use cheating before 2003, since just like amphetamine use, it was available to everybody without fear of being sanctioned by MLB. And I don't know what you mean by allocute, but most of the bigger names (eg. McGuire, Giambi, Pettitte, Rodriguez, Canseco, etc.) have admitted what they did.

They NEVER publicized it at all; conversely, they hid it as much as possible. Why? Because they knew it would be frowned upon everywhere and that doing so would push MLB to formally ban them.

[jazzcyclist]

They NEVER publicized it at all; conversely, they hid it as much as possible. Why? Because they knew it would be frowned upon everywhere and that doing so would push MLB to formally ban them.

I really don't see why the fact that steroid users didn't run around bragging about steroid use, a la Paul Revere, is relevant, but let me point out that amphetamine use wasn't publicized either, and when Tony Gwynn tried to bring to light the widespread use of greenies, he was ostracized by the other players. Furthermore, in all my years following LSU athletics and getting to know well over a hundreds of athletes in a variety of sports, not a single one has ever talked about doing creatine, but I know they all did it, because I've heard coaches talk about it. What's relevant to me is that the NCAA allows creatine use and prior to 2003, MLB allowed steroid and amphetamine use.

[jazzcyclist]

It looks like Alex Rodriguez has a Lance Armstrong problem. He claims that he quit doping in 2003 when MLB's PED-enforcement program went into effect, but recently discovered records indicate that he was doping as recently as last season.

Saturday, ESPN's Outside The Lines reported that Major League Baseball was investigating multiple wellness clinics in South Florida, as well as individuals with potential ties to players. The report said that the area from Boca Raton to Miami is "ground zero" for performance-enhancing drugs still filtering into the game.

Rodriguez, the New York Yankees slugger who ended 2012 injured and on the bench during the playoffs, has admitted to using steroids from 2001-03, but he has said he has not used PEDs since. The New Times report said that Rodriguez's name shows up 16 times in the records it reviewed. Miami New Times reported that records indicated Rodriguez paid Bosch $3,500 for "1.5/1.5 HGH (sports perf.), creams test., glut., MIC, supplement, sports perf. Diet." There are other notations for Rodriguez as well, beginning in 2009 and continuing through last season. Rodriguez had hip surgery last month and is expected to miss some or all of the 2013 season.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/ ... -ped-lists

[Conor Dary]

2003? LA wins his last race in 2005 and is only recently found out and you would have thought it was the coming of the anti-Christ. While Rodriquez is known to be using in 2003 and the reaction is like, that was not nice...

[jazzcyclist]

2003? LA wins his last race in 2005 and is only recently found out and you would have thought it was the coming of the anti-Christ. While Rodriquez is known to be using in 2003 and the reaction is like, that was not nice...

IMO, the piling on has definitely gone too far with Lance, but I also thought he was unworthy of the deification he recieved before his downfall.

[Conor Dary]

2003? LA wins his last race in 2005 and is only recently found out and you would have thought it was the coming of the anti-Christ. While Rodriquez is known to be using in 2003 and the reaction is like, that was not nice...

IMO, the piling on has definitely gone too far with Lance, but I also thought he was unworthy of the deification he recieved before his downfall.

LA's problem was winning the Tour too many times. If he had only won 2 or 3 no one would have really cared what he took. Especially the types who never followed the sport until LA made it big.

It was the same with Al Capone. Never should have had those 7 guys shot in that garage at 2122 N. Clark. The Feds would probably never had really cared....

[jazzcyclist]

It's interesting to compare Armstrong to Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.

Armstrong - 7 Tour de France wins, notorious asshole, lied to the Feds
Clemens - 7 Cy Young awards, notorious asshole, lied to the Feds
Bonds - 7 MVP awards, notorious asshole, lied to the Feds

Additionally, like Armstrong, Clemens also bullied and intimidated witnesses. I guess I have to give Bonds credit for being more discreet than Armstrong and Clemens. Not only did he only include one person in the loop, but that one person was a lifelong friend who probably played in sandboxes and shot marbles with him. By the way, the most shameful and underhanded act of the government during the PED witchhunts of the last decade is when the Feds raided the home of Greg Anderson's mother-in-law under the pretense that she was being investigated for tax evasion.

[Conor Dary]

It's interesting to compare Armstrong to Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.

Armstrong - 7 Tour de France wins, notorious asshole, lied to the Feds
Clemens - 7 Cy Young awards, notorious asshole, lied to the Feds
Bonds - 7 MVP awards, notorious asshole, lied to the Feds

Al Capone - 7 dead, February 14, 1929, 2122 N. Clark, Chicago.

7 is the magic number. Evil People all.....

[jazzcyclist]

Uh oh!

Ray Lewis may have used banned substance to recover from torn triceps

[Pego]

Uh oh!

Ray Lewis may have used banned substance to recover from torn triceps

Deer-antler velvet extract, eh? This one I never heard before.

[gh]

you obviously didn't read our front-page headlines section on August 06, 2011

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/w ... =hp_t12_a2

[Pego]

you obviously didn't read our front-page headlines section on August 06, 2011

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/w ... =hp_t12_a2

Yes, I missed it .

Back to the antler spray. If they don't "fortify" that antler extract, I'll eat my shoes.

[bambam]

This will be so covered up by the NFL - masters of PR. Of course, he never tested positive. Note that nobody on ESPN has mentioned that IGF-1 cannot be detected by urine testing, which is the only test they have - it requires blood testing.

He will be given a pass by the media on this, because it is the NFL, and then he will ascend into heaven.