Who on the ballot doesn’t fit any of these creiteria:
1.Failed PED test
2.In Mitchell Report
3.Legal probs related to PED accustions (i.e. perjury)
4.Fail “sniff” test
5.Implicated in Canseco’s book
What do you mean by “sniff” test - whether they are good HoFers or whether they have the scent of steroid use? And do you mean carry-overs, or just new ballot members? Because most of the carry-overs were non-PD-users.
I’m including carryovers (Larkin, Morris, etc.) Pass sniff test=no PED suspicions.
What constitutes a “suspicion”? Some people suspect everyone.
Jeff Bagwell is a pretty obvious candidate for your OP. He never failed a steroid test, wasn’t named in any report or book, has never been connected to steroids. I’ve heard people say they SUSPECTED Bagwell used steroids, but not based on any evidence, direct or circumstantial, of any kind. Is it enough “suspicion” that he hit a lot of homers?
Bernie Williams is the only newly eligble player who scores over 100 (133) on the Bill James Hall of Fame Monitor (over 100 means likely). Not that I think he has a chance at induction. I never heard any suggestions he was a juicer.
Larkin
Morris
Smith
Bags
“Rock” Raines
E. Martinez
Crime Dog
Murphy
B. Williams (surprised by his #'s)
The top 8 returning vote getters all pass my test.
Larkin, Morris, Lee Smith, Bagwell, Raines, Edgar Martinez, Trammell, Larry Walker.
Of the new nominees, only Bernie Williams is even remotely close to HOF, and I think he’s clean. Ruben Sierra may have been implicated by Canseco, but I’m not sure. Doesn’t matter because he’s nowhere close to HOF consideration.
I would vote for:
Larkin, Morris, Smith, Bagwell, Raines, Edgar
I understand the idea of refusing entry to known juicers, but, given that we now have a pretty good idea of how prevalent it was, it seems hypocritical. We knew all along, didn’t we? It was an open joke for many years. The Hall is for the top players of their time, and there was a period when juicing was generally part of the game.
And far more people did it than the ones we know about - do you let in somebody who got much bigger and stronger at an unusually late age because his name is not in any report? Or do you just make the assumption and leave him out of consideration? (That means Bagwell, ftr). I don’t like “but they all did it” as an excuse, but, face, it, they pretty much all *did *do it, and we fans *did *know about it, and we *did *approve of it. Further, there are plenty of Gods of the Game in the Hall who played when amphetamines were prevalent, and I’ve never heard a word about their not deserving it. There are known gamblers and game-fixers in the Hall too, without objection. So let’s cut the hypocritical moralizing crap.
Larkin, Morris, Bagwell, McGwire. The top players at their positions at the time they played, using the standards of their time.
My own picks aside, I’m going to predict that no one is elected by the writers next year.
I’d sure like to see Marvin Miller go in on the Veterans side. Will he be eligible in the next vote?
Who are the known gamblers and game-fixers in the HOF? The only ones I can think of are definitely left out, notably Rose and the Black Sox.
Ok, roids were a part of the game, but I do not believe that “they pretty much all did it.” What about guys who were *actually *clean? Maybe they’d have had more notable careers on a level playing field. It’s not fair for some, even if it is a majority, to skirt laws and rules to enhance their skills. They should not be rewarded for it. Think of the message you send when you say, “yeah you did something bad, but so did these other people, so you all get rewarded.”
So I take it that you are in favor of anyone who took greenies or admitted to throwing illegal spitballs to removed from the hall.
Ty Cobb.
Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker are known to have conspired to throw at least one game, as managers. There were something like a couple of dozen players other than the Black Sox who were banned for game-fixing during that period - none are in the Hall but are we sure there were no others who got away with it?
We can never be sure who they were. That’s the heart of the problem.
I completely agree with this comment. Where was the outrage when bowls of greenies were available in every MLB clubhouse? I agree with Bob Costas’s comment that perhaps we just need to draw a line around “The Steroid Era”, acknowledge that PEDs were used widely, acknowledge that we have no good way for distinguishing those who used from those who didn’t, and move on. To me, the Hall of Fame is for recognizing those players that clearly were among the best of their contemporaries. If we can also recognize players as the best of all time, that’s gravy. Further, we have statistical tools such as WAR, OPS+ and ERA+ that can help normalize career statistics between eras. I want to see how much a particular player’s performance stood out from the field, and reward those that were very far from the mean for their era.
All of this is just a long-winded way of saying that 3,000 hits or 500 HR doesn’t necessarily impress me, but showing me that a given performance or career was several standard deviations from the mean does.
Accordingly my ballot would be: Bagwell, Raines, Larkin, McGwire, Edgar Martinez, Palmeiro.
I am willing to be convinced for the cases of: Bernie Williams, Alan Trammell, Fred McGriff, Lee Smith, Dale Murphy, Juan Gonzalez.
Larry Walker’s home/away splits and injury problems don’t lead me to think that he had a HoF career. Similarly, Jack Morris’s ERA and ERA+ don’t lead me to want to vote for him as a hall of famer. If he gets in, it won’t be the worst thing ever, but I wouldn’t vote for him.
The weirdest name that pops out on Blank Slate’s 2012 link, sorted by WAR, is Brad Radke. At 12th, with 40.9 WAR, he’s just behind Murphy and ahead of Morris, Don Mattingly, and Juan Gone.
Both men were cleared in the 1926-27 offseason and went on to play for Connie Mack. The full story is shadowy, but there’s no way an honest observer can conclude that Speaker and Cobb were dirty with any certainty.
Larkin probably gets in next year. The first-timers look like a fairly poor crop, of those, I predict only Bernie Williams picks up the 5% required to remain on the ballot in 2013. I also predict that 2012 will be the year when one or more of the guys currently in the 15 - 40% range begins a Blyleven-esque upswing, culminating in his induction seven or eight years from now.
(As an aside, does anybody know what the double plus and minus signs mean in the “Position Summary” column of Baseball Reference’s predicted ballot? It’s explained that a single + means over 300 games played at that position, and a single - means less than 30 games, but I can’t find any explanation of what the doubled signs mean.)
Certainty, no. Probability beyond a reasonable doubt, yes. You will note that both men were required to leave their teams - hardly what would have happened to innocent men.
The whitewash has never dried.
…and then sign with other teams for hefty raises.
If Landis had anything on Cobb or Speaker, they would have never played again.
If they’d been ordinary Joes instead of Gods of the Game, they would have never played again, that is. Different rules apply to stars.
Any evidence for this? Joe Jackson was a lifetime .356 hitter and out he went. Eddie Cicotte was a 29-game winner (and would have had 30 if Charlie Comisky hadn’t cheated him) and out he went. Hal Chase was the “Prince of First Basemen” and out he went.
Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker were accused of fixing games by a disgruntled ex-pitcher. The only evidence was a letter that looked suspiciously like OTB correspondence (cite op. cit.). Landis was going to throw them out anyway in his quest to look like an incorruptable badass. Cooler heads prevailed, and they stayed in the game–and got raises.
“Beyond a reasonable doubt” my ass.