Hall Of Fame Vote

Jose Canseco estimated that 85% of players used roids, and for all of his bombast and odious personality traits, most of his claims in his book about suspected individuals were later proven true. Caminiti put the number at 50%, David Wells at 25-40%.

Canseco may have known about particular players, but he's not a credible source about much else, including league-wide PED use. And even if the number was 50%, the cheaters inflated their statistics and altered game results through their PED usage. They also harmed non-using players by lessening their statistics and relative statistical value, which harmed them in contract and arbitration negotiations. So, no they don't deserve to be in the HOF with players who didn't cheat.

We obviously disagree on this, and that's fine. I teach my kids that playing games right was what mattered, not winning at all costs, and certainly not cheating to win. If I ever take them to the HOF, I certainly wouldn't want to explain why cheating was ok, and even honored, at the professional level.

Strether we don't disagree that "cheating" is bad, or that baseball is an honorable tradition to pass on to our kids. We disagree about whether it was de facto "cheating" or not to use PEDs during an era when Baseball's administration tactitly approved the conduct. Record profits during high offensive seasons, no punishment only lip service, no comprehensive testing. I recognize clearly that your side of the argument is the easier sell to the general public. I think the moral import of pre-2004 PED use is a much more complicated, nuanced thing, is how I'd put it.

Have a good day.

And I tried to include some reform suggestions for the HOF above so as not to just list a stream of complaints.

Well, we don't entirely disagree on your proposals:

1. Sports writers are the best ones to vote. They cover teams and player year long and see their statistical and non-statistical values. Yes they can be biased, but so can scouts, GMs, and sabrmetricians. GMs could favor players whom they knew or for whom they traded. Sabrmetricians would favor players who did well according to the statistical analyses they favored. Scouts would favor players who exhibited the qualities for which they scouted. There is no escaping bias.

2. I completely agree.

3. Character clauses are extremely important as we do not want terrible people--and, yes, some are already in--or people who defrauded or harmed the game to be in the HOF. I agree the clause should be more specific, but it has to be flexible enough to allow for dealing with new unanticipated behaviors or events.

4. Voter ballots should be made public and subject to some scrutiny. However, if too much scrutiny is applied, sportswriters may alter their votes to avoid it. We don't want that to happen.

5. Voter terms should be limited to some degree. However, we don't want to lose the valuable insights of longtime beat writers with significant knowledge of players. We don't want all the voters to be relative newbies.

I wish you a good day as well.

Anyone who was involved in the business (GM, manager, player, clubhouse boy) is going to have a bias, if not a conflict of interest, based on their experiences, but it would be better to make the pool of electors broader. Perhaps fold in the Old Timers Committee and do away with the multiple paths to Hall enshrinement.

I do think the electors need to consider more than statistics, though, so if/when Derek Jeter gets elected and Alan Trammell ages off the list in two years, I am ok with that. Besides hard-core baseball fans, Detroiters, and his family, few people recognize the name Alan Trammell and think baseball greatness. Derek Jeter, in my opinion, transcended baseball and had popular culture recognition, and for that reason deserves greater Hall recognition. Granted, there are players who have pop culture recognition who can't play (football's Tim Tebow and Johnny Manziel come most immediately to mind) but obviously Jeter's play warrants a Hall recognition as well. Should off the field behavior count? Should illegal or suspected illegal behavior on the field count? I guess I haven't made my mind up either way, but consistency would be nice.

There are plenty of cheaters in the HOF already, be it by corked bats, scuffed or altered balls, greenies, , spitballs, air conditioning being turned off and on depending on who's at bat, and on and on. I get tired of the debate that steroids is cheating and anyone taking them should be banned from the HOF. Or is it ok to cheat depending on the degree of severity? I'm probably in the 1% minority that feels that way. I am not a fan of either Bonds or Clemens, but IMO both belong in. If Bonds played in an era where 50% were users, and Aaron played in an era where only 2% were using Greenies, who had the greater advantage? And please don't tell me steroids gives a greater advantage, because I am quite aware of what advantage using uppers can give oneself.

I don't buy the argument that some have cheated and gotten into the HOF therefore all cheating for future players is OK and should be awarded.

I kinda wanted to stay out of this, 'cause it's such a heated debate, but here's an example of why baseball writers MIGHT not actually be the best guys to be voting, this is from Hardballtalk.com, I'm cut/pasting the whole article:

Rob Parker is a Hall of Fame voter because he has been a member of the Baseball Writers Association of America for at least ten years. Those are the requirements. Nowhere in the BBWAA or Hall of Fame rules does it say that one need have any level of baseball expertise and insight. All one needs is that BBWAA card for a decade.

Which is lucky for Rob Parker if this is indicative of his baseball expertise and insight! Via Deadspin, here’s why Parker did not vote for Mike Piazza:

I just looked at his numbers, I thought they were very good. There’s a lot of guys very good. Fred McGriff’s not in the Hall of Fame, he’s a few home runs away, three home runs away, from 500. He has way more RBIs than Piazza, he’s not in the Hall of Fame. So there are guys like him. And I know, it’s the catching position, and people want to give more credit because it’s so hard to catch and play, but some of the defensive issues—not throwing out runners, no Gold Gloves as a catcher, things like that—that bothered me. I thought he’s a great hitter, he was a great hitter, batted over .300, but something told me he belongs in the Hall of Fame—or, Very Good, but not the Hall of Fame.

Parker voted for Lee Smith, by the way.

Just to be clear once again: Parker makes it very clear that he does not hold PEDs against Piazza or any other player. And I believe him on that, actually. Based on other things he’s said in the past, I honestly think Parker’s issues when it comes to awards and Hall of Fame voting is one of basic ignorance of what makes baseball players good, not hidden agendas. And no, I’m not being glib here. I honestly think that Parker fundamentally doesn’t understand baseball.

I mean, if one did understand baseball, and one did not take PED rumors into account, how else could one say that Mike Piazza isn’t a Hall of Famer?

Here's the link:
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/09/hall-voter-thinks-mike-piazza-isnt-a-hall-of-famer-even-if-you-ignore-ped-issues/

There are plenty of cheaters in the HOF already, be it by corked bats, scuffed or altered balls, greenies, , spitballs, air conditioning being turned off and on depending on who's at bat, and on and on. I get tired of the debate that steroids is cheating and anyone taking them should be banned from the HOF. Or is it ok to cheat depending on the degree of severity? I'm probably in the 1% minority that feels that way. I am not a fan of either Bonds or Clemens, but IMO both belong in. If Bonds played in an era where 50% were users, and Aaron played in an era where only 2% were using Greenies, who had the greater advantage? And please don't tell me steroids gives a greater advantage, because I am quite aware of what advantage using uppers can give oneself.

As Bombers said, just because cheaters have been inducted before doesn't mean we should let them all in. You don't correct past mistakes by entirely relenting and repeating them. Also, what past inductees have been proven cheaters or had substantial evidence of it brought against them? I believe there could be some, but I am curious.

Also, I would say that, while degrees of severity shouldn't be used to justify lesser cheating, it is a factor to consider. If a player unknowingly applies a bit too much pine tar on his bat for some at-bats, or a pitcher inadvertently goes to his mouth, he technically cheated. However, he shouldn't be banned from the HOF for it. However, as I said earlier, those cheating with steroids immensely impacted the game and harmed its integrity with their usage. They took wins away from teams with fewer or no roiding players. They robbed players like Maris and Aaron of honestly and diligently earned records. And they cost non-using players money in contract and arbitration negotiations because their statistics paled in comparison to the roiders. So the roiders did do significant harm with their cheating and don't belong in the HOF.

As to the greenies vs. PED argument, I'm not touching it. I'm not even close to a chemist, and unless one of the potencies was negligible, their respective potencies are irrelevant.

I kinda wanted to stay out of this, 'cause it's such a heated debate, but here's an example of why baseball writers MIGHT not actually be the best guys to be voting, this is from Hardballtalk.com, I'm cut/pasting the whole article

Thanks, Niners for the interesting article. However, all it really shows is there is a pretty clueless writer among the voters. I'm sure there are some more. However, no matter what group you choose--be it sabrmetricians, GMs, or scouts--you are going to get some clueless voters who are not generally smart and/or let their personal biases guide their votes.

As I said earlier, baseball writers are the best potential voters because they cover MLB year-round. They get to observe and learn the statistical and non-statistical values of MLB players. They also get to see how MLB and its players affect and engage with its communities and fans. Nobody else in the baseball world gets to acquire that level of valuable knowledge.