HOF 2016

I suspect most of us identify more with the guy using amphetamines than steroids because so many of us use caffeine for energy and keeping us alert. The leap from one to another is not as great.

I think the 3 morons who did not believe Griffey worthy of their vote should lose their privelege to vote.

McGwire clearly was hurt by 2 things. His steroid use and as one person said earlier the perception by some he was a one trick pony. I disagree with that as I though he was better defensively than some give him credit for. And hitting HR was what he was expected to do. But if you are not going to vote for Clemens and Bonds you cannot vote for Mac. You cannot compare Mac and Piazza because one was a first baseman and the other a catcher.

Griffey verses Edmonds is not close because Edmonds missed so much time almost every season. Not just fewer years, fewer games per year. And I do not think any pitcher gave Edmonds the respect Griffey received. Understand as a Cardinal fan I am in Edmonds corner but I am always going to choose Griffey over Edmonds by any standard.

Good stuff Valen.. I really like what you wrote comparing Trammell and Jeter's WAR. As you said, it is not everything but it does mean something. I really think Trammell should get in, and most if not all of the other players mentioned by all of you guys.

Piazza and Griffey are now in. Both excellent choices IMHO.

Unfortunately, Trammel didn't make it in his last year of eligibility and is now out. I would have voted for him. He did always maintain a significant level of support, getting 40+% after 15 years of voting, but he was never really close to election. I guess the difference between Trammel and Jeter is that indefinable charisma (which Derek had in buckets), plus the fact that he played for his whole career on a high-profile, championship team.

It looks to me like Bagwell will go in next year. Raines, who I also support, has a solid shot. He was up to 68% this year--and in a last year of eligibility, a player often gets a closer look. It wouldn't take much to get him in. Hoffman, at 67%, will almost certainly go in next year or the year after.

The 2017 class is a little thin, with Vlad Guerrero the #1 new candidate. This will be good for Raines, I believe. I think Mussina deserves enshrinement. He has time, but it will be key for him to move up next year. We'll see if that happens.

The steriods generation are clearly in trouble.

Heck, look at Griffey. Played well for 22 years. Suffered "wierd" injuries such as his hamstring hearing off his bone. Both are certainly possible circumstantial evidence indicating the use of steroids.

I have problem with declaring someone guilty and punishing them off circumstantial evidence, especially something like getting injured. Another explanation for those wierd injuries is he did not hold back. I can see not voting for roid users but you need actual proof, not circumstantial evidence that could easily be explained by other factors, including factors that make them even more desirable as a player.

I also think those voters who discount the accomplishments of the roiders should give more credit to those who for all we can tell were clean like McGriff. You cannot eliminate an entire generation just because some lacked character.

I also want to clarify an earlier statement. Saying Edmonds is not in the same class as Griffey does not mean I do not think he is hall worthy. Including Griffey there have been only 4 CFers elected to the hall and only Puckett was primarily a CFer for entire career. Mantle/Mays should not be the minimum standard.

I have problem with declaring someone guilty and punishing them off circumstantial evidence, especially something like getting injured

I'm not trying and convicting Griffey as a steroids user. My point is what is the burden of proof to delare someone a steroid user? Does it require a conviction? admission of guilt? An indictment? There are no rules as to what the burden of proof is, so it is entirely subjective, which is a bad idea IMO. I too, do not agree with declaring someone guilty based on circumstantial evidence, but HOF voters pretty well vote as if almost all of the steroid era players are guilty due to the era they played in.

And steroid use is not always followed by massive muscle growth. It depends on the particulars of the concoction. Recovery time, endurance, explosiveness, etc. etc. can all be increased without large amounts of muscle growth. Not to mention large amounts of muscle growth can be accomplished without steroids, with the use of many legal supplements.

So muscle growth is circumstantial as well, but often used to "taint" players from the roids era.

I also want to clarify an earlier statement. Saying Edmonds is not in the same class as Griffey does not mean I do not think he is hall worthy

I agree, I would not put Edmonds in the same class. The 630 HR Griffey had are a good benchmark number for the HOF. But their stats are surprisingly almost identical when it comes to BA/OBP/SLG, as well as their gold glove numbers. But Griffey played 22 season, Edmonds only 17, which is responsible for much of the difference in career totals.

But to have Griffey receive over 90% of the votes while Edmonds got 2% is ridiculous, given their almost identical stat lines. A shorter career sure did not seem to be an impediment for a Dimaggio for instance.

On the McGwire, I'd agree if you do not vote for Bonds or Clemens, it's tough to vote for McGwire. But based on evidence, why would these voters vote for Piazza?

http://www.metstoday.com/10592/14-15-of ... king-peds/

Oh, I suppose we can argue over whether Mike Piazza was “cheating” or not when he took the PEDs. In his public admissions, he admitted to taking androstenedione at a time when it was available over the counter, and before MLB tested for PEDs. Whether you agree that “andro” is a steroid or not has already been covered in the previously mentioned MetsToday post in February 2013. Regardless of how you classify it, “andro” is still a Performance Enhancing Drug, and one that was banned by the International Olympic Committee in 1997, and, since then, banned by MLB, the NFL, NBA, USOC, and NCAA. “Andro” is also the PED that Mark McGwire slyly placed in his locker in full view for a reporter such as Steve Wilstein to find. It was a slick move by McGwire because, at the time, “andro” was legal to use in MLB, and it could be found at the local GNC or other vitamin store — so, if anyone ever accused McGwire of cheating or taking steroids, he could “admit” to taking something that was legal and over-the-counter (and not have to admit to taking who-knows-what-else that was illegal and not OTC).

Now here’s an interesting twist — if one looks past Piazza’s admitted use of androstenedione, then one must also excuse McGwire’s use of the same. Right? And if one uses the argument that Piazza took a PED at a time when MLB wasn’t testing, so it’s OK, then you have to apply the same logic to McGwire. Therefore, if one excuses both players for using “andro,” then, theoretically, one might vote for both to be in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

How Piazza ever got voted in when voters take such a hard line against other PED users makes absolutely no sense to me.

Including Griffey there have been only 4 CFers elected to the hall and only Puckett was primarily a CFer for entire career. Mantle/Mays should not be the minimum standard.

I was a bit puzzled by this statement, especially since Valen is usually extremely accurate in his comments in this forum. Maybe Valen intended to include a qualifier that I'm missing. Baseball-reference gives Centerfield as the primary position of the following HOFers (in order of their election):
Cobb
Speaker
Dimaggio
Roush
Lloyd Waner
Earle Combs
Mantle
Earl Averill
Hack Wilson
Willie Mays
Duke Snider
Richie Ashburn
Larry Doby
Puckett
Griffey Jr

That's 15 if I'm counting right. That is a pretty fair number of CFs, it would seem to me.

Hugh Duffy predates the period where OF positions were recorded in box scores, but he's seen by SOM as primarily a CF. So are Oscar Charleston and Turkey Stearnes. Also, baseball-ref gives Yount's positions as Shortstop and CF, and Robin did play a healthy 1150 games at CF (along with 1479 at SS). Although Cobb's numbers are incomplete, b-ref gives him vastly more games in CF than in RF (1589-197).

I'm not trying and convicting Griffey as a steroids user. My point is what is the burden of proof

I think you need something concrete. A test result. Being named in the Mitchell report. Something beyond he just looks like he has muscles.

On the 4 CF I did indeed leave out a qualifier. That was over the last 30 or 35 years or something like that. I already erased the recording so cannot go back and re-listen to verify. So that is Griffey and Puckett from Leftfield's list. And I think the MLBnetwork person included Yount and .... oh fiddlesticks I forget who the other one was he named. But it was someone who only spent about half their career in CF. I remember that part because one of them commented with that clarification.

I think you need something concrete. A test result. Being named in the Mitchell report. Something beyond he just looks like he has muscles.

So prior to McGwire admitting use of steroids, he should not have received the anti-steroid bias?

To my knowledge, there were only allegations, other than the at that time legal use of andro.

At the time Mac used Andro they were not against the rules of baseball, they were not illegal to buy. They could be bought freely at GNC and Walmart. I have trouble condemning someone and holding against them using something that was being marketed at the time on TV much as protein shakes are now. As to whether anything used by anyone was against olympic rules they were not playing in the olympics. So holding them to that standard would be like me holding you to the standards of computer epertise I have to maintain as part of my job. Full truth there is I never followed the olympics much outside the basketball dream team. Never watched. Never rooted for anyone. Never worried what they were taking or being tested against. They were not aligned with baseball in any way so do not see the olympics as mattering. In fact Andro was used so much by athletes in America in those days I have heard Michael Irvin say that every single football player he ever played with took them. But all of the above is irrelevant because I did not respond initially to your comments about McGwire and roid users in general. I specifically commented on a statement you made about Griffey.

That was the context in which I stated that I thought we should have proof before we start speculating and inmplying someone was juiced. Implication is one of the ugliest smear techniques out there. You can accuse someone of something and yet when called on it claim on a technicality that you said possible circumstantial evidence. But intelligent people everywhere know exactly what you are trying to say. And if you were not trying to say it there would be no point in making a statement like that at all.

And yes, if I am going to say he or any other player was cheating I want proof. I think that is reasonable. I want a failed drug test. I want copies of receipts. I want treatment records such as existed in the Balco and Florida clinics. If you ever get accused of something you did not do you will likely begin asking people to use that same standard.

I would ask you to give me some slack because I come from a history of multiple times being accused of and punished for things I did not do because of flimsy circumstantial evidence like you would convict Griffey and Piazza with. Not accused of PEDS because I now realize I was never enough of a successful athlete to draw those suspicions. I would probably welcome and be flattered by suspicion of PED use because that would imply I had accomplished something.

I'm not convicting anyone of roid usage. I am just curious of the burden of proof required, and yes indeed I don't look to convict those with only circumstantial evidence.

I used to train for strong man and had really quick muscle growth. My ligament and tendons however did not grow at the same speed, so I was subject to various ligament and tendon injuries. My counterparts assumed/questioned as to if I was using steroids, which I was definitely not, due to the injuries and fast muscle growth.

But again, I am not looking to pass judgement, only to define the playing field used by others to pass judgement.

I can pretty well surely say that most HOF writers would have not voted for McGwire prior to his admission of steroid use. IIRC, the vote for him did not bump much one way or another after he admitted usage in 2010. And had he not admitted usage, the only evidence against him would be the same as Piazza's evidence against him. Yet it was seen fit to exclude McGwire prior to his admission by most voters, I think largely because they viewed him as steroid "tainted".

I look at the steroid era this way - The owners did not have a problem with it until all of baseball was being brought under scrutiny about steroid use. Then they threw the players under the bus. The powers in the league at that time did not seem to have a problem with it, and many of the players were using it, I'd agree with Canseco that a good 80% of ballplayers were using it. Canseco is a bit of a loose cannon, but he has shown to be pretty accurate. If indeed 80% of the players were using steroids, the use of such did not really enhance the specific player but instead allowed them to compete on a level playing field with all the other steroid users.

While I do not condemn Griffey and Piazza as steroid users, they very well could have been. And we will never know. Heck, if you use Canseco's numbers there is an 80% chance they were using steroids. And the inability to know what was truly going on, who was and was not using them is the true problem.

I look at steroid use as amphetamines - another illegal drug used to enhance performance which was in wide use by players. There have been other factors in the past that have inflated other players stats, such as limiting the league to white players only for many years which resulted in a diluted talent pool. Unless you want to put an asterisk for every major issue in baseball that effected performance (such as night baseball, use of a specialized relief corp, etc. etc.), you should really not view steroid era players in a negative light. Not that I look at the other issues other than amphetamines as wrong actions by the players, but they still "skew" the record books.