He got in because he had an outstanding career by any measurement. Take off the last two seasons - or even three - and he doesn’t have 300 wins, but his other numbers look even stronger.
I didn’t quite get that reasoning, as well. Schilling has one of the best narratives of his era. But he also has a big mouth. As a Sox fan, I can really appreciate his promise to "Shut the mouths of 55,000 Yankee fans, " but I can see why that isn’t received in the same way in NYC.
Mussina, OTOH, had a great career in a tough division, but a pretty weak narrative (for such an excellent pitcher). For about 2-3 years in the Yankee-Sox rivalry, Moose always seemed to draw Pedro as the opposing pitcher. And while Pedro was better, Mussina usually managed to keep the game close, while Yankee hitters extended pitch counts against Martinez, which is a big part of why they were his daddy. (I think Pedro was career .500 vs Yankees)
Sure, you can pick any one specific, random stat. But look at his career WAR: it’s behind guys like Edgar Martinez and Jim Edmonds. He played first base. First base! And still managed to be a crappy fielder.
He was traded a bunch of times - how many hall of famers play for eight teams? He is an admitted PED user. Between the ages of 20-29, he averaged 113 games a year and 20 HRs. Between the ages of 30-36, he averaged 147 and 35 HR!
All he really did was hit a bunch of home runs when everyone was hitting bunches of home runs. Yes, he was undeniably a monster in the batter’s box, but it’s not called the Hall of Really Good Hitters And Not Much Else. I’m sure the VC will put him in, but no way should he be voted in.
Speaking of Biggio:
[QUOTE=Bellhorn]
But years from now, when you take your grandchildren to the HOF, and come across Biggio’s plaque, will you have ANYthing to tell them, except "This guy played for a long time and played 3 positions and got hit by a lot of pitches.?
[/QUOTE]
I’m convinced you never actually watched baseball in the last 25 years, right? 
In addition to being in the top 50 all-time in a dizzying number of hitting stats - including hits, doubles, runs scored, plate appeaances, times on base, extra-base hits, offensive WAR, and total bases - Biggio played three key positions (catcher, 2nd base, center field). At 2nd base he was involved in the top-20 most double plays of all time. 14th most games played at 2B. Four Gold Gloves.
Biggio did it all, and he did it for a very long time. He’s the very definition of a hall of famer.
I think Biggio is unfairly underrated by some people because of a few reasons:
-
For much of his career, many people didn’t even think he was the best player on his own team (and that guy isn’t in the HOF yet either.)
-
Less than stellar post season success/stats. He never had that “moment” in the post season (ala Jack Morris) to be memorable to a lot of people.
-
He had great offensive numbers in an era when many people has astounding offensive numbers.
Don’t get me wrong, I voted for him above. I am confident he will get voted in soon. As I said, I just think some of these things are holding him back in some peoples eyes. Unfairly.
In addition to what others have said, isn’t the exclusion of Morris proof this just isn’t true? All Morris had going for him was Narrative (in fact, I think I heard he had the most Narrative of any player in the 80s…).
This, by the way, is bullshit, and deserves more than a passing mention. So the BBWAA has no problem with the morons who refuse to vote for anyone, or the assholes who flat out admit they’re refusing to vote for the best player on the ballot for what amount to personal reasons, but it’s Dan LeBatard submitting a perfectly reasonably ballot on which he got input from the general public that sullies the integrity of the process? I mean, I suspect it’s the “general public” thing that bothers them - when a collection of non-writers so obviously understands and appreciates the game better than most of their putative experts, it’s embarassing - but screw them.
I look with the purest schadenfreude at the marginalization and irrelevance that their organization and its members have begun to experience, and look forward to its increase in the years to come. They brought it on themselves.
Exactly. If we’re talking about making a mockery of the process, giving a vote to Deadspin users is way less of a big deal than throwing away your ballot, submitting a blank ballot, voting for Jack Morris based for incomprehensible reasons, or voting for Armando Benitez or Jacque Jones. It ultimately doesn’t matter very much because he’s not a baseball writer in the main. That’s a much bigger problem; as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, a lot of BBWAA members don’t really cover baseball but they get to keep voting. As usual, a sports-related entity is punishing someone for drawing attention to a major problem it’s unable or unwilling to fix.
I disagree.
There’s a big difference between having tolerance for far-out dissenting opinions and tolerance for lack of integrity.
The whole point of the BBWAA voting is that the BBWAA members vote. That’s the rules. You don’t like the rules then change the rules. But this guy violated them.
Nonsense. He voted. That’s his name and his signature on the ballot. He just voted for whoever Deadspin told him too.
This is no different than if LeBatard’s kid told him to vote for Craig Biggio and he did it. Or if some writer decided to check in here and reproduce our results.
The rules don’t say the writer can’t consider input, or offer requirements about what kind of input is permitted. Dan LeBatard decided to consider the input of the Deadspin readers, and then use it to determine his vote. You don’t think the other writers did much the same? The ones who don’t cover baseball, in particular? They did - just not as directly, explicitly… or openly.
So LeBatard will be punished, because he did it and said he did it. Other writers regurgitated opinions of others but pretended they were their own, and they will not be stripped of their votes. That’s stupid and silly and, again, the sign of an organization desperate to prove that it has some magical level of expertise and wisdom that it does not have.
Murray Chass pulls steroid accusations out of his asshole, but that’s fine.
You’re conflating two different things.
One is basing your opinion on input from someone else. Everyone does - and should do - this. But after you’ve heard that opinion and been convinced that it’s correct, it becomes your opinion, and your vote represents your opinion, regardless of how it was formed.
The second is saying upfront that the vote goes however someone else decides. That’s not basing your opinion on someone else, that’s just allowing someone else to vote.
I don’t recall the SDMB banning anyone for saying anything really really stupid. But they ban a lot of sock puppets.
You’re looking in the wrong place:
“5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.”
“Integrity, sportsmanship and character” are half of the explicit categories of consideration. Each voter is free to weight any category in his/her own way, but to just ignore that the clause does not exist is just wrong.
I see posters claiming that people who didn’t vote for Maddux should have their votes taken away, but how about voters who pay absolutely no attention to integrity, sportsmanship and character. As long as we’re calling for votes to be taken away, shouldn’t we be fair about it and strip both extremes – Murray Chass, Ken Gurnick and all those that say, " I don’t care if they broke the law and MLB rules to get in, they belong there."
That’s about the integrity of the player, not the voter.
OK, got it. My bad attempt at browsing a meandering thread.
As far as Le Batard, if he really wanted to do something constructive, he could have held on to final control of his ballot and used Deadspin posters as part of a “group think,” approach.
After, the voting, he posted that he was half-expecting that the Deadspin voters would make a point by justing voting for Jacques Jones, so he clearly does not deserve to keep his voting privileges, if he was fine with letting that happen.
But someone else actually voted for Jacque Jones!
I’m guessing someone rated him very high on integrity, character and sportsmanship. 
Note, however, that the BBWAA did a much better job of voting then this board’s voting in the hall.
Can you explain your system a little bit? Voting for Jacque Jones is fine even though he’s clearly unworthy, but turning over your ballot to someone who might vote for Jacque Jones is not fine?
First of all, Le Batard, I believe, was talking about ONLY voting for Jacques Jones, and leaving then next 9 slots blank, which would have the same effect of returning a blank ballot, thus raising the vote threshold to reach 75%. Although, it’s dumb, if a voter found less than 10 worthy candidates, and then decided to throw a token at Jacques Jones for some unique event or sexual favor then it’s basically a no-harm, no-foul incident. Not “right” to do, but it hurts no one.