It does seem like peer pressure is always a factor for that - but I wonder how much of that is off-set by the new names on the list, and knowing that Morris is going to be off the list next year whether he gets in or not.
ElvisL1ves:
Why would you think reporters had full knowledge of the PED problem at the time? Wouldn’t they have eagerly written big exposes about it if they knew?
How many BWWAA voters are there? I’m curious mathematically what the max class size would be.
“More than 600,” according to the BBWAA site. And you need 75% of the vote from the ballots that are cast to get in.
TY Marley. I knew about the % threshold.
I figured. But it’s worth noting that it’s a percentage of the ballots that get returned, not the total membership. 75% of the total membership is around 450 people, but if for some reason only 100 people vote, anyone who gets 75 votes is in. I am not sure what this means in terms of maximum class size.
Forgot that not all ballots get returned. That leads to reforms I’d make:
1.Can vote for up to 20 guys
2.Stay on ballot 10 years
3.Drop threshold to 66.7%
4.Anyone who fails to return/returns empty ballot: lose vote
(Not as gung-ho on last 2 TBH)
It wasn’t just reporters. We *all *knew. Don’t pretend you didn’t. We told joke after joke about it too. I’m sure you remember.
Only when Canseco came forward and rubbed everyone’s face in it did there come to be a collective decision that it was time to put an end to it. That, and the fact that the game had become nine innings of Home Run Derby. I would suggest that the intensity of the sanctimony about steroids merely reflects guilt over having accepted the situation for so long, hmm? Anyway, the shortest retort would be “Should we remove amphetamine users from the Hall?” Another would be “Who *was *‘clean’ and how do you know?”
Oh, reporters, you ask? Stories about steroid use, and its consequences for athletes who dove into the deep end, did come out regularly. They weren’t exposes, though. To repeat, we *all *knew, we *all *accepted it to some degree, and many or most of us even *liked *it.
IOW, let’s all cut the shit, shall we?
It doesn’t affect it.
In theory, if all the voters colluded, they could get (100/75) of the maximum votes in. With 10 votes, you could have 100/75 (which is 4/3), or 13 guys in, each with barely 75% of the votes cast.
Doesn’t matter if only 100 people vote, or > 600, as long as they cooperate.
It’s time to put the PED stuff behind us…
Jeff Bagwell
Craig Biggio
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Tom Glavine
Greg Maddux
Mark McGwire
Mike Piazza
Sammy Sosa
Frank Thomas
I would have voted for Rafael Palmeiro too, but I hit my 10.
I don’t think it matters. Even old schoolers know that Morris isn’t one of the ten best players on the ballot. Who are they going to skip to vote in Morris? Maddux and Glavine are sure things, Schilling’s is close to a sure thing, Clemens already got his one year deferral… too many better pitchers to choose from. Morris’s best chances are already behind him.
Since you ask who to leave off: If you think this is Morris’ year and you want to finally vote for him, it’s easy to let Clemens stew another year. Even without the PED thing, you can discount his poor sportsmanship with good conscience. Or you can say Schilling’s an asswipe too and doesn’t deserve the first ballot. The human power of rationalization is strong indeed.
If Morris’ best chances are behind him, why has his vote been rising so rapidly over the last few years? What makes his situation different from Blyleven’s, who had the same thing happen?
With the caveat that if the total number of voters is not a multiple of 4, the theoretical maximum drops to 12.
Nah, there’s room to spare.
103 voters, for instance, gives you 1030 votes. Each guy needs 78 votes to make it (78/103 is 75.73%).
You can give 13 guys 78 votes each and still have a few left over, even though 103 isn’t divisible by 4.
You could not get 14 guys in, no matter the number of voters.
Sorry, bup, I was looking at smaller numbers and extrapolated too quickly. That’ll learn me! (Or not.)
A revision: For some numbers of voters, including but not limited to n < 36 in which n is 1 less than a multiple of 4, you can’t elect 13 players, only 12.
(39 is where 13 kicks in, with nothing to spare.)
Obviously the HOF expects way more than 36 ballots, so this doesn’t really come in to play.
ElvisL1ves:
Then maybe I’m the only blind man in a sea of winkers, but I can say with certainty I didn’t know that the late 90’s were tainted with PED use until after the scandal broke, full-blown. I remember there being a few individual suspicions (IIRC, Ken Caminiti was suspected long before he admitted it in the midst of the wide scandal breaking), but I certainly do not remember anyone publicly voicing suspicion of McGwire or Sosa in 1998, or Jason Giambi, or Barry Bonds, or any of these guys at the time, nor suggesting that usage was rampant.
Maybe it is. I’m clearly not a very good mind-reader. But I still have no problem keeping proven PED users out of the Hall and treating those who have no proven PED usage as no less worthy of induction as those in earlier, un-tainted generations. I like the “innocent until proven guilty” standard (although I’ll accept as “proven” those whose evidence is thrown out on technicalities rather than on substantial challenges to said proof, (coughRyanBrauncough)).
The link I posted earlier in this thread is about how the public PED scandal started in August, 1998 with Mark McGwire and Andro.
Here’s the original story. Caused a huge firestorm of controversy and was the first true shot fired in the PED scandal.
Were you living in a cave? I honestly didn’t think anyone didn’t at least suspect Bonds of something. I’ll admit, I thought McGwire and Sosa were innocent of using real PEDs.