OK, before we get into the new year and start breaking down the Baseball Hall of Fame ballot player by player, I want to talk about this ballot for a minute, because it’s been a very strange voting experience this year.
I posted above 3 days ago. But then I had this fast fix. Keep the voting with BBWAA. Keep the 75% threshold. BUT. The top 2 vote getters every year get inducted. No matter what the percentage. This keeps the flow of young-ish players going into the Hall. Keeps younger fans interested in the Hall.
It was nice last year to see the induction of Hodges, Minosa, Oliva, Kaat (whoever I left out). But I’m 64 years old. I think that’s about as young as you can possibly be to fully appreciate a ceremony like that. I’ve visited Cooperstown several times. I’m not sure if I’m going again. Younger people, it would seem to me, need to feel motivated to visit the Hall to see the players they grew up with. Not the players I grew up with
P.S. -- The idea that the players of today don’t compare to the players of the past is nonsense. We all watch Babe Ruth hit homers on YouTube. But we don’t watch the games where he struck out 4 times. It’s not fair to compare the highlights from the stars you never saw play live to the day-by-day of following a baseball season
I like the idea that there always needs to be someone going in. There's been so many baseball players in the majors there always has to be at least one hof player each year.
I think “Atlanta’s largest stadium ever” was called “The Launching Pad”. And I think more homers were hit there than at Fenway (or anywhere else, for that matter). Murph would get my vote, though.
This is very thoughtful and appreciate you soliciting feedback. In short, The Hall belongs to all of us. Not just the committees cited, but also to the players, the BBWAA, and us fans! You’re an expert in the field and clearly take your vote very seriously, you should obviously continue voting your conscience.
Having said that, there does appear to be a huge backlog of candidates that most voters feel deserved to be enshrined. At the same time, we are trending to have only one inductee this year- an unsettling paradox. Ron Santo was elected after he died. Same for Minnie Miñoso. Most feel that Dick Allen should be enshrined, he will not have lived the day to see it. That’s a HUGE problem. The “why wait” is not just a matter of practicality but could be a matter of serious consequence.
Overall, would like to see on average 3-4 players inducted every year. It’s more fun for the fans to have more than 1 elected, more fun for the inductees themselves, and not diluted to the point where it loses focus on each player’s enshrinement.
Nowadays, it appears the BBWAA voters are relying a little too heavily on WAR. It is one metric and not the end all be all. There have been teams that have relatively low WAR but won their division (a large sample size). There’s more than one way to win and more than one way to evaluate talent. WAR has been great to shed light on underrated players like Bobby Abreu, but it has hurt the more traditional candidates like Jeff Kent whose WAR numbers are hurt by dWAR. That’s concerning because defensive metrics are far from being perfected and are ever so evolving. Kent’s has 339 Win Shares, well above the 300 threshold for elected Hall of Famers.
There’s plenty of room in The Hall to vote for the WAR players and the “traditional” players. To alleviate the backlog, it would be great if the new wave voters considered the traditional candidates and vice versa, the traditional voters give more consideration to the WAR candidates. This will be a tough pill to swallow for some, but it would alleviate the backlog and help get in more inductees per year. It would be for the greater good!
Along the lines of WAR, we are losing focus on the intent of The Hall. The Hall of Fame is not meant to just grade a player’s talent, it is honoring a player’s total career. Like it or not, the criteria include not only the well-known “character clause” but also includes a player’s record and contributions to the team. As Joe has mentioned previously, Steve Garvey and Al Oliver have similar offensive totals, but in addition; Garvey has an errorless streak record, playing streak record, and performed extremely well in the postseason. Even though October play is a small sample, those are the games that matter the most! In my opinion and based on The Hall criteria, these should all come into play for Garvey’s candidacy.
Also, I do not see an issue with honoring a player like Yadier Molina. He was an elite defender for a long time at THE premium position. He was a critical cog on two championship teams. He may not meet the WAR and JAWS criteria, but his career is absolutely worth honoring. Does that lower the bar? I don’t believe so. It may make the evaluation trickier, but that’s the voters’ job! Anyone can check a WAR/JAWS number and see if it meets the bar. There should be a little more nuance in determining enshrinement.
And lastly on my soapbox, PEDs cases. It’s obvious a significant number of voters do not want players that are heavily linked to PEDs to be inducted. I do not see a problem for these PED users to wait their turn, that’s the price you pay for using an illegal substance. Yes, baseball did not test for it, but it was still technically illegal in the eyes of law enforcement and these players knew they were doing something out of bounds. If a voter has room on their ballot and feel that a player linked to PEDs should still be in, then by all means, vote your conscience. However, if a voter does not have room on their ballot, consider taking the previous cues on PEDs cases and hold off voting for PED users in that round. This could also alleviate the backlog and get in the borderline candidates sooner. Once the backlog is relieved, then maybe the PED users will come to the forefront and eventually be elected.
George Kelly - last played in 1932 inducted in 1973
Tommy McCarthy - last played in 1896 inducted in 1946
Rick Ferrell - last played in 1947 inducted in 1984
Lloyd Waner - last played in 1945 inducted in 1967
Hack Wilson - last played in 1934 inducted in 1979
Chick Hafey - last played in 1937 inducted in 1971
Rabbitt Maranville - last played in 1935 inducted in 1954
Freddie Lindstrom - last played in 1936 inducted in 1976
Pop Haines - last played in 1970 inducted in 1937
Harry Hooper - last played in 1925 inducted in 1971
Red Faber - last played in 1933 inducted in 1964
Travis Jackson - last played in 1936 inducted in 1982
Ray Schalk - last played in 1929 inducted in 1955
Jim Bottomley - last played in 1937 inducted in 1974
Ross Youngs - last played in 1926 inducted in 1972
Rube Marquard - last played in 1925 inducted in 1971
Candy Cummings - inducted as a Pioneer/Executive in 1939
Tom Yawkey - inducted as a Pioneer/Executive in 1971
I don’t know how old you are, Mr. Coyle. I am seventy. I wasn’t born when any of these players played. All but six were inducted before I graduated high school. I became a member of the Hall of Fame in 1987 so all of the players you listed were already inducted.
But, when it comes to Harold Baines, I was an active follower of baseball during his entire career. I saw him play in person, I watched him on television, and I played with him (well, his SOM card) in many Strat-o-Matic leagues over the years.
So, yes, Mr. Coyle, I knew from my personal experience that Baines was absolutely not of Hall of Fame caliber and, therefore, was the last straw.
Mr. Braccini: Couldn't agree more. I'm a mere boy of 59. By reputation (meaning: stuff I read as a kid)...Rick Ferrell, Lloyd Waner, Hack Wilson, Rabbit Maranville and Rube Marquard all were far better than Harold Baines. I saw Harold Baines. He never matched the eyeball test when he played. Honestly, Johnny Damon was a better player than Harold Baines. We all know why Baines is in. Good for him. And that's not an argument for Johnny Damon to be elected by a committee, too.
This is why I'm thankful that it's not one single person who makes the call - it's the consensus of around 400 people. No single criterion can possibly work; better to assemble a huge number of people and let them make their own personal decisions.
Maybe you shouldn’t change anything. Isn’t the point of the Era Committees, and prior Veterans Committees, to induct players the HOF views were missed by the BBWAA? I do believe the BBWAA voters have increasingly become too focused on WAR, which should be used to help identify great players perhaps missed, but in the process they’ve missed some peak players who haven’t compiled a high WAR.
The HOF seemed to make it clear that they don’t want Bonds and Clemens in the Hall. Ok, but as fans we see Piazza, Ivan Rodriguez, Ortiz, and Bagwell elected and we scratch our heads. The message is we kind of forgive certain players for taking PEDs, but don’t forgive others if they’re truly great. It’s...odd.
My biggest problem with the Baseball Hall of Fame centers around the "lifetime ban."
"Shoeless" Joe Jackson is dead. Pete Rose will die someday. Same with Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and Curt Schilling.
Every four years they should have a special committee to elect one dead player who was previously not elected for various reasons. His plaque should list the reason(s) for his banishment and/or subsequent sins against baseball or (in Schilling's case) humanity.
These players deserve to be in the hall of fame. Never allowing them to see their enshrinement is punishment enough.
Joe. The Hall, or somebody gave you a vote. YOU. You are not MY REPRESENTATIVE. I DID NOT GIVE YOU MY VOTE
Therefore, Please vote your conscience. It is your vote. You are not authorized to vote for me or anyone else. Cast your vote according to your Hall of Fame standards. That is your responsibility.
As Joe says, the Hall wants the BBWAA to elect players. So why not change the rules? Just say that the top player gets elected, even if he is under 75%.
Take the 2013 election...no-one got even 70%. Now, that might suggest that there was no-one on the ballot who deserved election. But TEN of them have been elected since. Would it really have hurt to put in Craig Biggio (68.8%), rather than make him wait two years?
Before 2013, it was 1996, Phil Niekro leading with 68.3%. I'm looking at nine players who have been elected since, ten if you count Joe Torre.
The more I think about it, maybe one isn't enough. Try two? Just rework the voting from, say, 2000 onwards, imagining that there had been a rule that two players had to be elected every year. A lot of players would have been elected sooner, but you get to 2021 before you find even one name of someone who wasn't elected at all.
Having said all this, it might not work until the last of the polarising names (Manny, A-Rod) have disappeared from the system.
I am uncomfortable with the though that people have forgiven Andy Pettitte for steroid use, but not Roger Clemens? This makes no sense at all.
First off, Pettitte is a proven user, and Clemens is not. I know the prevailing opinion is that used, and he was a great player (The great ones seem to draw extra ire), but he has beaten two trials with the express purpose of proving that he used steroids. He has never changed his stance that he did not, and the trainer that testified against him did it to make a deal to avoid prosecution.
As for Pettitte, he is a proven liar and a proven user. He denied ever using steroids until proof came out. Then he said he only used it one day, until proof came out of a completely different incident in a different year, after which he made another heartfelt confession that he only used it two days. He said in one trial against Clemens that Roger had told him he used, and then said he was mistaken in a second trial. Obviously he is a liar and a perjurer, but which time? I think he is just a dishonest POS.
Truthfully, I am in the camp of letting the deserving ones in. It is a period of baseball history in which there were more people doing it than not, and we probably already have users in the Hall, (I mean besides Ortiz, who has a good smile, so that's OK) from that time, perhaps even people that we all want to believe were clean. (Like a former Mariner and Red who had a documented increase in his hat size) You can't just ignore it and pretend it wasn't what baseball was about for 15 years.
But Pettitte is borderline - at best - anyway. I think it would be a hypocritical travesty to let him in while leaving so many better players out.
Yeah, I'm gonna need someone to explain the logic of forgiving Pettitte but not others. If that's true (and I'm not sure it is) then it's just more evidence that no one has ever really been upset about steroids themselves, it's that records were broken that people didn't want broken.
Pettitte claimed he only used in order to speed up his injury recovery time. It's obvious a lot of people 'bought' that reason and sympathized with him over it whereas with Clemens/Bonds etc they were using simply to defy the aging curve / boost themselves to god mode.
If you caught your spouse cheating, and they said it was the first and only time they ever did it, and then a few years later, caught them again, and they said you caught them the first time they had done it since, the only two times they had ever done it, and the rest of the time they had been completely faithful, would you buy that?
Not a chance the 1st or 2nd time (the old 'never one roach' theory).
He was merely a slightly above average pitcher who racked a big win total because he happened to play for the Yankees. When you look at his contemporary pitching competition (Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz, Martinez, Johnson, Mussina, Schilling, Clemens etc) why would anyone think he belongs as he's at most the 9th best guy of his era? It would be one thing if that era was under represented but it's absolutely not the case.
I share your belief that Pettitte is far back in the line via-a-vis his contemporaries, but I think your “slightly above average” tag is a bit off base. Pettitte’s career ERA+ is 117. Were Glavine and Blyleven “slightly above average” at 118? Was Carlton at 115? With Pettitte, it’s the quantity that’s lacking, not the quality.
Interesting because I see him as exactly the opposite. Tons of quantity and no quality:
- 3.85 career ERA (virtually identical to Jack Morris).
- No Cy Youngs. In fact he finished 2nd only 1 time and 4th one time.
- Never struck out 200 in any season and wasn't really close to doing so.
- Led the league exactly 1 time in 1 pitching category (wins)
- Only 3 All Star appearances
Where exactly is the quality to indicate he was a dominant pitcher? He's the definition of a guy who showed up to work for 18 years and compiled lots of slightly above average stats.
I can’t get comfortable with the “You can’t tell the story of baseball without…” argument. At least not as a reason for actual induction into the HOF. A huge part of the story of baseball involves players who will never sniff the Hall, like Bobby Thomson, Fred Merkle, Mark Fidrych, Eddie Gaedel, Don Larsen, Bucky Dent…you get the idea. I haven’t been there, but I imagine that their “stories” ARE in the HOF. So the idea that it’s somehow incomplete if Rose or Bonds or Clemens aren’t inducted seems like a bit of a reach. I am not saying that they should never get in. I am saying that the story of the PED era can absolutely be told without inducting it’s most notorious violators.
You're absolutely correct that this "you can't tell the story of baseball without..." argument is bogus, and Joe is as guilty as anyone I read of trotting that out.
The story of every one of those guys you mentioned can be found in the Hall of Fame; they're just not being honored with a plaque.
I think two things you say can both be true: That HOF voting is far too restrictive, and that you can have a line that governs who you vote for. The issue is that all voters have their lines in different places. Because there’s no rhyme or reason to HOF voting, there’s no reason to get all worked up about it; I figure those folks who deserve to get in will make it eventually. One can only hope that those who are deserving make it before they pass on.
Jimmy Rollins with a 95 OPS+ is a HOFer? Eh, doesn't seem like it, a very very good player though. Of course, he's just as deserving as some of those 19th century players or all of the Yankees voted in.
Other than Beltran and K-Rod and possibly Buehrle, it's hard to see any of the new names on the ballot being other than one and done. That was a pretty lame retirement year.
I posted above 3 days ago. But then I had this fast fix. Keep the voting with BBWAA. Keep the 75% threshold. BUT. The top 2 vote getters every year get inducted. No matter what the percentage. This keeps the flow of young-ish players going into the Hall. Keeps younger fans interested in the Hall.
It was nice last year to see the induction of Hodges, Minosa, Oliva, Kaat (whoever I left out). But I’m 64 years old. I think that’s about as young as you can possibly be to fully appreciate a ceremony like that. I’ve visited Cooperstown several times. I’m not sure if I’m going again. Younger people, it would seem to me, need to feel motivated to visit the Hall to see the players they grew up with. Not the players I grew up with
P.S. -- The idea that the players of today don’t compare to the players of the past is nonsense. We all watch Babe Ruth hit homers on YouTube. But we don’t watch the games where he struck out 4 times. It’s not fair to compare the highlights from the stars you never saw play live to the day-by-day of following a baseball season
I like the idea that there always needs to be someone going in. There's been so many baseball players in the majors there always has to be at least one hof player each year.
OMG. I forgot Buck O’Neill
Did they use it ? I don’t think so
Evans played at Fenway. How many homers would Dale Murphy have if he had played there and not in Atlanta' largest stadium ever?
I think “Atlanta’s largest stadium ever” was called “The Launching Pad”. And I think more homers were hit there than at Fenway (or anywhere else, for that matter). Murph would get my vote, though.
This is very thoughtful and appreciate you soliciting feedback. In short, The Hall belongs to all of us. Not just the committees cited, but also to the players, the BBWAA, and us fans! You’re an expert in the field and clearly take your vote very seriously, you should obviously continue voting your conscience.
Having said that, there does appear to be a huge backlog of candidates that most voters feel deserved to be enshrined. At the same time, we are trending to have only one inductee this year- an unsettling paradox. Ron Santo was elected after he died. Same for Minnie Miñoso. Most feel that Dick Allen should be enshrined, he will not have lived the day to see it. That’s a HUGE problem. The “why wait” is not just a matter of practicality but could be a matter of serious consequence.
Overall, would like to see on average 3-4 players inducted every year. It’s more fun for the fans to have more than 1 elected, more fun for the inductees themselves, and not diluted to the point where it loses focus on each player’s enshrinement.
Nowadays, it appears the BBWAA voters are relying a little too heavily on WAR. It is one metric and not the end all be all. There have been teams that have relatively low WAR but won their division (a large sample size). There’s more than one way to win and more than one way to evaluate talent. WAR has been great to shed light on underrated players like Bobby Abreu, but it has hurt the more traditional candidates like Jeff Kent whose WAR numbers are hurt by dWAR. That’s concerning because defensive metrics are far from being perfected and are ever so evolving. Kent’s has 339 Win Shares, well above the 300 threshold for elected Hall of Famers.
There’s plenty of room in The Hall to vote for the WAR players and the “traditional” players. To alleviate the backlog, it would be great if the new wave voters considered the traditional candidates and vice versa, the traditional voters give more consideration to the WAR candidates. This will be a tough pill to swallow for some, but it would alleviate the backlog and help get in more inductees per year. It would be for the greater good!
Along the lines of WAR, we are losing focus on the intent of The Hall. The Hall of Fame is not meant to just grade a player’s talent, it is honoring a player’s total career. Like it or not, the criteria include not only the well-known “character clause” but also includes a player’s record and contributions to the team. As Joe has mentioned previously, Steve Garvey and Al Oliver have similar offensive totals, but in addition; Garvey has an errorless streak record, playing streak record, and performed extremely well in the postseason. Even though October play is a small sample, those are the games that matter the most! In my opinion and based on The Hall criteria, these should all come into play for Garvey’s candidacy.
Also, I do not see an issue with honoring a player like Yadier Molina. He was an elite defender for a long time at THE premium position. He was a critical cog on two championship teams. He may not meet the WAR and JAWS criteria, but his career is absolutely worth honoring. Does that lower the bar? I don’t believe so. It may make the evaluation trickier, but that’s the voters’ job! Anyone can check a WAR/JAWS number and see if it meets the bar. There should be a little more nuance in determining enshrinement.
And lastly on my soapbox, PEDs cases. It’s obvious a significant number of voters do not want players that are heavily linked to PEDs to be inducted. I do not see a problem for these PED users to wait their turn, that’s the price you pay for using an illegal substance. Yes, baseball did not test for it, but it was still technically illegal in the eyes of law enforcement and these players knew they were doing something out of bounds. If a voter has room on their ballot and feel that a player linked to PEDs should still be in, then by all means, vote your conscience. However, if a voter does not have room on their ballot, consider taking the previous cues on PEDs cases and hold off voting for PED users in that round. This could also alleviate the backlog and get in the borderline candidates sooner. Once the backlog is relieved, then maybe the PED users will come to the forefront and eventually be elected.
Thanks for your consideration!
Mr. Coyle:
Let’s examine the list of players you offer:
George Kelly - last played in 1932 inducted in 1973
Tommy McCarthy - last played in 1896 inducted in 1946
Rick Ferrell - last played in 1947 inducted in 1984
Lloyd Waner - last played in 1945 inducted in 1967
Hack Wilson - last played in 1934 inducted in 1979
Chick Hafey - last played in 1937 inducted in 1971
Rabbitt Maranville - last played in 1935 inducted in 1954
Freddie Lindstrom - last played in 1936 inducted in 1976
Pop Haines - last played in 1970 inducted in 1937
Harry Hooper - last played in 1925 inducted in 1971
Red Faber - last played in 1933 inducted in 1964
Travis Jackson - last played in 1936 inducted in 1982
Ray Schalk - last played in 1929 inducted in 1955
Jim Bottomley - last played in 1937 inducted in 1974
Ross Youngs - last played in 1926 inducted in 1972
Rube Marquard - last played in 1925 inducted in 1971
Candy Cummings - inducted as a Pioneer/Executive in 1939
Tom Yawkey - inducted as a Pioneer/Executive in 1971
I don’t know how old you are, Mr. Coyle. I am seventy. I wasn’t born when any of these players played. All but six were inducted before I graduated high school. I became a member of the Hall of Fame in 1987 so all of the players you listed were already inducted.
But, when it comes to Harold Baines, I was an active follower of baseball during his entire career. I saw him play in person, I watched him on television, and I played with him (well, his SOM card) in many Strat-o-Matic leagues over the years.
So, yes, Mr. Coyle, I knew from my personal experience that Baines was absolutely not of Hall of Fame caliber and, therefore, was the last straw.
Mr. Braccini: Couldn't agree more. I'm a mere boy of 59. By reputation (meaning: stuff I read as a kid)...Rick Ferrell, Lloyd Waner, Hack Wilson, Rabbit Maranville and Rube Marquard all were far better than Harold Baines. I saw Harold Baines. He never matched the eyeball test when he played. Honestly, Johnny Damon was a better player than Harold Baines. We all know why Baines is in. Good for him. And that's not an argument for Johnny Damon to be elected by a committee, too.
This is why I'm thankful that it's not one single person who makes the call - it's the consensus of around 400 people. No single criterion can possibly work; better to assemble a huge number of people and let them make their own personal decisions.
Maybe you shouldn’t change anything. Isn’t the point of the Era Committees, and prior Veterans Committees, to induct players the HOF views were missed by the BBWAA? I do believe the BBWAA voters have increasingly become too focused on WAR, which should be used to help identify great players perhaps missed, but in the process they’ve missed some peak players who haven’t compiled a high WAR.
The HOF seemed to make it clear that they don’t want Bonds and Clemens in the Hall. Ok, but as fans we see Piazza, Ivan Rodriguez, Ortiz, and Bagwell elected and we scratch our heads. The message is we kind of forgive certain players for taking PEDs, but don’t forgive others if they’re truly great. It’s...odd.
I never have seen any evidence that Bagwell was a PED user. What are the reasons you include his name on this list?
My biggest problem with the Baseball Hall of Fame centers around the "lifetime ban."
"Shoeless" Joe Jackson is dead. Pete Rose will die someday. Same with Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and Curt Schilling.
Every four years they should have a special committee to elect one dead player who was previously not elected for various reasons. His plaque should list the reason(s) for his banishment and/or subsequent sins against baseball or (in Schilling's case) humanity.
These players deserve to be in the hall of fame. Never allowing them to see their enshrinement is punishment enough.
In Rose's case, it's a permanent ban, not a lifetime ban
This. I believe it's officially "permanently ineligible" or some such.
I have no idea why people (not you specifically) think of it as a lifetime ban that expires when the person dies.
I think the same for Jackson. Permanent does not equal lifetime.
No one who shit on the sport like Jackson or Rose "deserves" to be in the hall of fame. That's absurd.
Joe. The Hall, or somebody gave you a vote. YOU. You are not MY REPRESENTATIVE. I DID NOT GIVE YOU MY VOTE
Therefore, Please vote your conscience. It is your vote. You are not authorized to vote for me or anyone else. Cast your vote according to your Hall of Fame standards. That is your responsibility.
As Joe says, the Hall wants the BBWAA to elect players. So why not change the rules? Just say that the top player gets elected, even if he is under 75%.
Take the 2013 election...no-one got even 70%. Now, that might suggest that there was no-one on the ballot who deserved election. But TEN of them have been elected since. Would it really have hurt to put in Craig Biggio (68.8%), rather than make him wait two years?
Before 2013, it was 1996, Phil Niekro leading with 68.3%. I'm looking at nine players who have been elected since, ten if you count Joe Torre.
The more I think about it, maybe one isn't enough. Try two? Just rework the voting from, say, 2000 onwards, imagining that there had been a rule that two players had to be elected every year. A lot of players would have been elected sooner, but you get to 2021 before you find even one name of someone who wasn't elected at all.
Having said all this, it might not work until the last of the polarising names (Manny, A-Rod) have disappeared from the system.
I am uncomfortable with the though that people have forgiven Andy Pettitte for steroid use, but not Roger Clemens? This makes no sense at all.
First off, Pettitte is a proven user, and Clemens is not. I know the prevailing opinion is that used, and he was a great player (The great ones seem to draw extra ire), but he has beaten two trials with the express purpose of proving that he used steroids. He has never changed his stance that he did not, and the trainer that testified against him did it to make a deal to avoid prosecution.
As for Pettitte, he is a proven liar and a proven user. He denied ever using steroids until proof came out. Then he said he only used it one day, until proof came out of a completely different incident in a different year, after which he made another heartfelt confession that he only used it two days. He said in one trial against Clemens that Roger had told him he used, and then said he was mistaken in a second trial. Obviously he is a liar and a perjurer, but which time? I think he is just a dishonest POS.
Truthfully, I am in the camp of letting the deserving ones in. It is a period of baseball history in which there were more people doing it than not, and we probably already have users in the Hall, (I mean besides Ortiz, who has a good smile, so that's OK) from that time, perhaps even people that we all want to believe were clean. (Like a former Mariner and Red who had a documented increase in his hat size) You can't just ignore it and pretend it wasn't what baseball was about for 15 years.
But Pettitte is borderline - at best - anyway. I think it would be a hypocritical travesty to let him in while leaving so many better players out.
Yeah, I'm gonna need someone to explain the logic of forgiving Pettitte but not others. If that's true (and I'm not sure it is) then it's just more evidence that no one has ever really been upset about steroids themselves, it's that records were broken that people didn't want broken.
Pettitte claimed he only used in order to speed up his injury recovery time. It's obvious a lot of people 'bought' that reason and sympathized with him over it whereas with Clemens/Bonds etc they were using simply to defy the aging curve / boost themselves to god mode.
Yeah, people ate that up and asked for seconds.
If you caught your spouse cheating, and they said it was the first and only time they ever did it, and then a few years later, caught them again, and they said you caught them the first time they had done it since, the only two times they had ever done it, and the rest of the time they had been completely faithful, would you buy that?
Not a chance the 1st or 2nd time (the old 'never one roach' theory).
He was merely a slightly above average pitcher who racked a big win total because he happened to play for the Yankees. When you look at his contemporary pitching competition (Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz, Martinez, Johnson, Mussina, Schilling, Clemens etc) why would anyone think he belongs as he's at most the 9th best guy of his era? It would be one thing if that era was under represented but it's absolutely not the case.
I share your belief that Pettitte is far back in the line via-a-vis his contemporaries, but I think your “slightly above average” tag is a bit off base. Pettitte’s career ERA+ is 117. Were Glavine and Blyleven “slightly above average” at 118? Was Carlton at 115? With Pettitte, it’s the quantity that’s lacking, not the quality.
Interesting because I see him as exactly the opposite. Tons of quantity and no quality:
- 3.85 career ERA (virtually identical to Jack Morris).
- No Cy Youngs. In fact he finished 2nd only 1 time and 4th one time.
- Never struck out 200 in any season and wasn't really close to doing so.
- Led the league exactly 1 time in 1 pitching category (wins)
- Only 3 All Star appearances
Where exactly is the quality to indicate he was a dominant pitcher? He's the definition of a guy who showed up to work for 18 years and compiled lots of slightly above average stats.
I have no problem with Jimmy Rollins being in the Hall of Fame.
I can’t get comfortable with the “You can’t tell the story of baseball without…” argument. At least not as a reason for actual induction into the HOF. A huge part of the story of baseball involves players who will never sniff the Hall, like Bobby Thomson, Fred Merkle, Mark Fidrych, Eddie Gaedel, Don Larsen, Bucky Dent…you get the idea. I haven’t been there, but I imagine that their “stories” ARE in the HOF. So the idea that it’s somehow incomplete if Rose or Bonds or Clemens aren’t inducted seems like a bit of a reach. I am not saying that they should never get in. I am saying that the story of the PED era can absolutely be told without inducting it’s most notorious violators.
You're absolutely correct that this "you can't tell the story of baseball without..." argument is bogus, and Joe is as guilty as anyone I read of trotting that out.
The story of every one of those guys you mentioned can be found in the Hall of Fame; they're just not being honored with a plaque.
I think two things you say can both be true: That HOF voting is far too restrictive, and that you can have a line that governs who you vote for. The issue is that all voters have their lines in different places. Because there’s no rhyme or reason to HOF voting, there’s no reason to get all worked up about it; I figure those folks who deserve to get in will make it eventually. One can only hope that those who are deserving make it before they pass on.
Jimmy Rollins with a 95 OPS+ is a HOFer? Eh, doesn't seem like it, a very very good player though. Of course, he's just as deserving as some of those 19th century players or all of the Yankees voted in.
Other than Beltran and K-Rod and possibly Buehrle, it's hard to see any of the new names on the ballot being other than one and done. That was a pretty lame retirement year.