Hall Of Fame Vote

That's my pet peeve. Piazza is a three-time loser now. His vote percentage has gone up over this time, but still under the standard. So what keeps him out?

I made it clear right here:

As to Bagwell and Piazza, the steroids suspicions are still lingering around both of them. Both of their bodies grew substantially and quickly from their skinny minor-league days, and rumors have swirled around both of them, particularly Piazza. That may not be fair, and they may not deserve the exclusion of near-certain users like Bonds and Clemens, but the voters do have the prerogative to vote (or not vote) based on their suspicions.

I'm surprised Turtle isn't aware of the steroids allegations against and suspicions of Piazza. They are pretty much common knowledge.

If Pizza isn't a HOF today what makes him one next year? The system is flawed. The Voting is flawed. Pete Rose isn't in HOF!
Sit down vote for how many guys you think should be in even if its 20 guys. One shot either your in or your not. Or take it out of the hands of the writers and their own agendas and have the living HOF's vote, since dead ones can't vote!

Yes, the system is flawed and the voting is flawed, like all voting systems are. That does not necessarily mean the system is failing more than succeeding. As to the extended voting period, I'm definitely for it. First of all, sometimes many worthy candidates become eligible at once, and they can't all be inducted in one class. Also, sometimes the writers need an extended period to legitimately evaluate a candidate. A perfect example is Jim Rice, whose offensive stats were initially unfairly compared to the 90's/early 00's roided era, and he was unfairly snubbed. However, over time, writers realized their error and correctly voted in one of the most dominant offensive players of the late 70's/early 80's.

I also still think the writers should be the voters. They are the ones who spend the most time observing and analyzing the game while following shifting, but not nebulous, professional standards. Sure they sometimes have agendas, and that's unfortunate, but most do hold themselves to some ethical standard. And handing it off to the players certainly wouldn't increase objectivity. Personal grudges against ex-opponents and ex-teammates, as well as biases for ex-teammates, would be prevalent.

Finally, Alk, you'll have to forgive me on this, but Pete Rose does not belong in the HOF. Since he bet on Reds games while managing, he most certainly privileged particular victories over the Reds' season's success, the health and well-being of his players, and the long-term good of the organization. In doing so, he defrauded the Reds, their fans, and MLB.

Finally, Alk, you'll have to forgive me on this, but Pete Rose does not belong in the HOF. Since he bet on Reds games while managing, he most certainly privileged particular victories over the Reds' season's success, the health and well-being of his players, and the long-term good of the organization. In doing so, he defrauded the Reds, their fans, and MLB.

That's cool I knew your feelings on Rose from other conversations. I guess I rationalize it by separating the player from manager. But its off topic.
"I wonder what that one person was thinking?"
Darin Erstad on getting 1 vote

He was a hell of a punter at Nebraska...

If Pizza isn't a HOF today what makes him one next year? The system is flawed. The Voting is flawed. Pete Rose isn't in HOF!
Sit down vote for how many guys you think should be in even if its 20 guys. One shot either your in or your not. Or take it out of the hands of the writers and their own agendas and have the living HOF's vote, since dead ones can't vote!

Well, Pete Rose's absence is attributable to the commissioner, not the electors, so the flaws in voting isn't affecting him now/yet. But Bonds, Clemens, et al? I stay with my initial thought: pass judgment on them, be done with and move on. Either Bonds et al crowd deserve to get in, or they don't. By the pure numbers, they deserve to get in. If they achieved those numbers illegally, keep them off the ballot. But nothing they do now, whether it be confession or denial, selfless community servant or greedy narcissist, should affect their Hall-worthiness as a player. Now if somehow one of these guys goes on to become a top-notch manager, GM, different story.

And the Hall still has the Old-Timers Committee, so if this voting system is unjust, it isn't the only shot at the Hall, either.

If voting I would be yes for Clemens no for Bonds. The reason-Skinny Bonds at Pittsburgh was not Hall material. Clemens' career was hall worthy throughout. Palmeiro's career stats may be the most fraudulent of all

The sad thing is, Bonds was the best player in the NL when he was with the Pirates, and would probably have been a HOF player without the roids. His only comp in 1991 was Griffey, who I would say is probably the best player I've ever seen.

I'm no on both. However, Bonds was improving as a hitter before he hit the roids and turned Cro Magnon. The roids helped his bat speed a bit, and his power immensely, but it didn't give him his sublime batting eye. My anecdotal evidence certainly isn't affirmative, but I watched him at the plate many times and only saw him swing at one bad pitch. It's too bad that and being the best defensive LF ever wasn't enough for him.

The dude just got jealous of all the loving the big boppers were getting, got stupid, and threw away a clean, sure HOF career. Clemens couldn't face age and its natural decline and did the same thing. I feel for them, but they both made their own beds.

How can you not vote a guy in on the first ballot if he's one of the top ten all-time at his position?

It's easy. Just look at Ron Santo, Graig Nettles, and Larry Walker.