Hall of Fame results today

[Adverb Harry]

A very big list of names is about to find out their fate and how they are viewed in light of their PED use (and guilt by association due to the era): Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, Biggio, Piazza, Schilling, and Lofton are all eligible for the first time, along with the usual holdouts like Dale Murphy and Jack Morris. It'll be interesting to see to what degree the steroid allegations color the results. IMO, there's no chance in hell Bonds and Clemens even get within sniffing range of 75 percent, but I am interested to see what actual percentage they do get. Also, the sheer logjam of big-name players alone will make it tough for anyone to get in, because ballots can only contain ten players. Maybe this is the year NOBODY gets in?

[CAVSTRIBEBROWNSin07!]

To save the integrity of the HOF, the MLB writers will vote in guys who have no business being there just to show up PED users. Dumbasses.

[skatingtripods]

More worried about next year's vote. Maddux, Glavine, Randy Johnson, Mussina all eligible.

[peeker643]

More worried about next year's vote. Maddux, Glavine, Randy Johnson, Mussina all eligible.

I think Maddux and Johnson get in first with Mussina (ridiculous numbers)and Glavine coming after. But that will be interesting.

[skatingtripods]

I think Maddux and Johnson get in first with Mussina (ridiculous numbers)and Glavine coming after. But that will be interesting.

Mussina is the only questionable one. Like you, I think he gets in.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Maddux, Glavine, and Johnson all get in next year.

[CAVSTRIBEBROWNSin07!]

Glavine's going in before Mussina. Glavine was a great, Mussina was a really good.

[peeker643]

Glavine's going in before Mussina. Glavine was a great, Mussina was a really good.

Can certainly base an argument on that with CYA's, etc. Issue for me is Mussina, while winning 30 or so less games, had a better ERA plus and WHIP in a tougher (by and large) AL to pitch in. No pitchers over the course of that career to help the cause.

And to go 20-8 with an excellent ERA in last year and walk away is pretty cool

[skatingtripods]

Can certainly base an argument on that with CYA's, etc. Issue for me is Mussina, while winning 30 or so less games, had a better ERA plus and WHIP in a tougher (by and large) AL to pitch in. No pitchers over the course of that career to help the cause.

And to go 20-8 with an excellent ERA in last year and walk away is pretty cool

Mussina also pitched in just 18 seasons. Maddux, Glavine, Johnson were all 22+. So, had Mussina kept going, he would have won 300, much like they did.

[gotribe31]

No one elected this year. Unreal. The voters should be ashamed.

[pup]

Clemens - 37%
Bonds - 36%

Closest was Biggio at 68%

[Madre Hill, Superstar]

The self-appointed village elders have spoken, everyone gets shunned. Shuuuuuuunnnnnnnnnnnnn.

[1Perry]

No one elected this year. Unreal. The voters should be ashamed.

Just curious. Who do you believe should have been voted in?

[skatingtripods]

Clemens - 37%
Bonds - 36%

Closest was Biggio at 68%

Considering the only player with 3,000 hits not in the Hall is Palmeiro, Biggio probably deserves to be in. That said, I'm not surprised he didn't make it.


The fact that Clemens got more of the vote than Bonds is downright astonishing. I realize Bonds was a gigantic dick to the media, and that definitely plays a role because some people vote on character over statistics, but I'm pretty shocked at that, especially with Clemens's court case.

[skatingtripods]

More worried about next year's vote. Maddux, Glavine, Randy Johnson, Mussina all eligible.

I think Maddux and Johnson get in first with Mussina (ridiculous numbers)and Glavine coming after. But that will be interesting.

Frank Thomas is on next year's ballot, too.

[Madre Hill, Superstar]

No one elected this year. Unreal. The voters should be ashamed.

Just curious. Who do you believe should have been voted in?

If we're gonna shun the scapegoats, then go ahead and put in the next tier of guys who would've made it anyways: Biggio, Piazza, Bagwell. Pick one or more. Maybe throw in Tim Raines while we're at it.

[1Perry]

No one elected this year. Unreal. The voters should be ashamed.

Just curious. Who do you believe should have been voted in?

If we're gonna shun the scapegoats, then go ahead and put in the next tier of guys who would've made it anyways: Biggio, Piazza, Bagwell. Pick one or more. Maybe throw in Tim Raines while we're at it.

I agree that Biggio should have got in. It would not have bothered me if Piazza got in but I have always had a problem with the argument, using him specifically, Yeah, he was an average catcher but he was one of the best offensive catchers ever. But then dismiss those who were the best at their position defensively because they were average offensively.

Mazeroski being maybe the best example of this. In the end, Maz had one of the best acceptance speeches ever.

I'm sure this argument will be beat to death when Vizquel becomes eligible.

[gotribe31]

No one elected this year. Unreal. The voters should be ashamed.

Just curious. Who do you believe should have been voted in?

If I had a vote, I'd probably have voted for Bonds, Clemens, Piazza, Bagwell, Biggio, Lofton, Raines, Martinez, Schilling and McGwire.

Until one of the PEDs guys gets officially banned from baseball, as far as I'm concerned they should get in if eligible. Their plaques should also contain language that says they used PEDs (if it's proven; obviously nothing for guys like Bagwell and Piazza who've never been concusively linked to PEDs). Just one man's opinion. And I know the Lofton vote is a little bit of a homer vote, but there's definitely a case that can be made for him to get in.

Sosa doesn't crack my top-10 because his peak was shorter than the other guys, but I'd vote for him eventually as well with the same caveats I'd use for Bonds, Clemens and McGwire.

[1Perry]

I understand the argument for Bonds and Clemens. IMO nobody remembers Sosa outside of his PED days. If I had a vote, Lofton would at least get 2 votes even though I admit it's partially a homer vote also as he doesn't meet some of the standards I would hold others to.

Just to poke the bear, I'm not sure I vote for a guy who only reached 219 wins as a pitcher. Yes, he was dominate for a few years but so was Dale Murphy.

[neoleo]

Lofton not getting the 5% needed to stay on the ballot was a little surprising to me. I had heard a couple of opinions from guys with votes and they thought he'd get in eventually.

[gotribe31]

I understand the argument for Bonds and Clemens. IMO nobody remembers Sosa outside of his PED days. If I had a vote, Lofton would at least get 2 votes even though I admit it's partially a homer vote also as he doesn't meet some of the standards I would hold others to.

Just to poke the bear, I'm not sure I vote for a guy who only reached 219 wins as a pitcher. Yes, he was dominate for a few years but so was Dale Murphy.

I'm not a big fan of pitcher wins as a counting stat for who gets in. Personal preference of course, which is all the HOF vote really is anyway when you get down to it; tough to say anyone's "right" or "wrong" other than whatever I say is right and Peek is likely to be wrong.

I'm not violently opposed to Dale Murphy, but think he had about a 5-year peak (82-87)while Shil was well above average pretty much from 1995-2007 (with 2005 as the outlier) with a couple of dominant seasons in '90 and '92 thrown in as well.

Again, it's a subjective debate by it's very nature, so I'm not telling anyone their "wrong"...even you. And this is more or less my off the cuff ballot from reading a few articles this week as opposed to a well thought out and researched effort. Just telling you who I'd vote for, that's all.

[bac5665]

Not letting on Bonds, Clemens et al is a joke. A disgrace. These media guys are trying to whitewash baseball history because they failed to uncover the steroid use at the time, instead of after the fact. If they had done their jobs and investigated, who knows what would have happened. Instead, these people are trying to pretend that an entire generation of baseball didn't happen.

A joke and a shame.

[bucknutz94]

I have $50 bet with my cousin. He says Jeff Kent is gonna get in the HOF. I say no way. Today on ESPN Timmy Kurkjian said he'll be voting for Kent next year. Uh-oh.

What say you on Kent? HOFer or no?

[leadpipe]

Not letting on Bonds, Clemens et al is a joke. A disgrace. These media guys are trying to whitewash baseball history because they failed to uncover the steroid use at the time, instead of after the fact. If they had done their jobs and investigated, who knows what would have happened. Instead, these people are trying to pretend that an entire generation of baseball didn't happen.

A joke and a shame.

Bonds and Clemens didn't get in because;

A. They cheated.

B. They lied

C. They are assholes.

Not sure how all of this, or frankly, any of it is on the media, fans or voters.

Look, I don't get bent about any of this. Those who want to vote in the PED guys, great. Those who don't, that's ok as well. But let's not act like the overall onus on these guys not getting in has anything to do with people acting irrational.

I know that in real life, those who are known as cheaters, liars, assholes - or even one out of those three, don't catch a whole lotta breaks.

And Craig Biggio remains very underrated, even while being regarded as a very good player.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

No one elected this year. Unreal. The voters should be ashamed.

Just curious. Who do you believe should have been voted in?

If I had a vote, I'd probably have voted for Bonds, Clemens, Piazza, Bagwell, Biggio, Lofton, Raines, Martinez, Schilling and McGwire.

Until one of the PEDs guys gets officially banned from baseball, as far as I'm concerned they should get in if eligible. Their plaques should also contain language that says they used PEDs (if it's proven; obviously nothing for guys like Bagwell and Piazza who've never been concusively linked to PEDs). Just one man's opinion. And I know the Lofton vote is a little bit of a homer vote, but there's definitely a case that can be made for him to get in.

Sosa doesn't crack my top-10 because his peak was shorter than the other guys, but I'd vote for him eventually as well with the same caveats I'd use for Bonds, Clemens and McGwire.

I agree with all of this.

Not letting on Bonds, Clemens et al is a joke. A disgrace. These media guys are trying to whitewash baseball history because they failed to uncover the steroid use at the time, instead of after the fact. If they had done their jobs and investigated, who knows what would have happened. Instead, these people are trying to pretend that an entire generation of baseball didn't happen.

A joke and a shame.

And all of this.

The writers are such fake moralist assholes. MLB didn't give a SHIT when balls where flying out of the park and the fans were eating it up. They did nothing, the writers did nothing. Their retroactive policing is pathetic.

If Ty fucking Cobb is in the HOF, all of these PED players should be in. Cobb stabbed a guy and beat up a fan with no hands.

[1Perry]

You do have to note the irony of assholes not voting for a guy in part because he was an asshole.

[7foot3]

Bonds and Clemens didn't get in because;

A. They cheated.

B. They lied

C. They are assholes.

Not sure how all of this, or frankly, any of it is on the media, fans or voters.

Look, I don't get bent about any of this. Those who want to vote in the PED guys, great. Those who don't, that's ok as well. But let's not act like the overall onus on these guys not getting in has anything to do with people acting irrational.

I know that in real life, those who are known as cheaters, liars, assholes - or even one out of those three, don't catch a whole lotta breaks.

And Craig Biggio remains very underrated, even while being regarded as a very good player.

What rules did they break in cheating?

Even if they did cheat, when did any of those reasons become grounds for exclusion from the Hall? It's filled with cheaters, liars, assholes, and worse.

If voters came out and made a statement about how much of a shame it is the Hall is already filled with cheaters, liars, jerks, drug users (yes, there are certainly PED users already in the Hall), we can't remove them but we can prevent any more from entering. And we're going to hold the Hall to a completely new, higher, standard, and going to dole out stricter punishments than MLB mandates for drug usage. If they said something like this, then we're on to something.

But they don't do this. You get guys like Costas who are still mad that the records made when they were young have been broken, and guys like Chass who make illogical leaps like bacne must mean PED use. They aren't logical or level headed about this at all.

[NH Tribe Fan]

For whatever reason I can't get worked up about the HoF. I simply don't care. I think it's watered down and more like a Hall of Good players. When I was a kid I thought of the HoF as Ruth, Aaron, Mayes, Feller, Robinson, Gehrig, etc. I doubt any kids will be thinking about Jim Rice, Andre Dawson, or Bert Blyleven. There were all good players, but not one of the greats. It feels like there is too much inertia to vote people just for the sake of voting for people. It's like the All-Star Ballot revisited after players have retired solely for baseball columnists. I just can't get excited about it.

[leadpipe]

Bonds and Clemens didn't get in because;

A. They cheated.

B. They lied

C. They are assholes.

Not sure how all of this, or frankly, any of it is on the media, fans or voters.

Look, I don't get bent about any of this. Those who want to vote in the PED guys, great. Those who don't, that's ok as well. But let's not act like the overall onus on these guys not getting in has anything to do with people acting irrational.

I know that in real life, those who are known as cheaters, liars, assholes - or even one out of those three, don't catch a whole lotta breaks.

And Craig Biggio remains very underrated, even while being regarded as a very good player.

What rules did they break in cheating?

Even if they did cheat, when did any of those reasons become grounds for exclusion from the Hall? It's filled with cheaters, liars, assholes, and worse.

If voters came out and made a statement about how much of a shame it is the Hall is already filled with cheaters, liars, jerks, drug users (yes, there are certainly PED users already in the Hall), we can't remove them but we can prevent any more from entering. And we're going to hold the Hall to a completely new, higher, standard, and going to dole out stricter punishments than MLB mandates for drug usage. If they said something like this, then we're on to something.

But they don't do this. You get guys like Costas who are still mad that the records made when they were young have been broken, and guys like Chass who make illogical leaps like bacne must mean PED use. They aren't logical or level headed about this at all.

Never said exclude them cause they are any of the above.

Never said there weren't guys without those qualities already in residence.

Just saying that if you're looking to get in the place, you'd be better served to play by the rules, tell the truth and not be a douchebag.

Take PED's out of it for a second 7, cause I know for some Godforsaken reason you don't think they help...but Barry Bonds, as well as local favorite Albert Belle lost MVP's chiefly because they were assholes.

By the way, not even sure why I'm writing this, and why it's news, hell, in any walk of life you're going to have a leg up by not being a jerk-off. And I'd wager that in pretty much every hall of fame, from high school athletics to a card playing hall, there are real "good guys" enshrined, that were not as good as some assholes that aren't.

If Barry Bonds weren't all of the above (or if you wanna leave out PED's) two of three of the above, they'd have a hell of a higher percentage than they had today. Would it be enough? Well, that would be tipped by the way voters feel about drugs, and as I mentioned before, it doesn't chap my ass either way. But I'd guess a beloved Barry Bonds gets in maybe not the first year, but the second.

[7foot3]

Never said exclude them cause they are any of the above.

Never said there weren't guys without those qualities already in residence.

Just saying that if you're looking to get in the place, you'd be better served to play by the rules, tell the truth and not be a douchebag.

Take PED's out of it for a second 7, cause I know for some Godforsaken reason you don't think they help...but Barry Bonds, as well as local favorite Albert Belle lost MVP's chiefly because they were assholes.

By the way, not even sure why I'm writing this, and why it's news, hell, in any walk of life you're going to have a leg up by not being a jerk-off. And I'd wager that in pretty much every hall of fame, from high school athletics to a card playing hall, there are real "good guys" enshrined, that were not as good as some assholes that aren't.

If Barry Bonds weren't all of the above (or if you wanna leave out PED's) two of three of the above, they'd have a hell of a higher percentage than they had today. Would it be enough? Well, that would be tipped by the way voters feel about drugs, and as I mentioned before, it doesn't chap my ass either way. But I'd guess a beloved Barry Bonds gets in maybe not the first year, but the second.

You said they didn't get in because they were cheaters, liars and assholes. If we're not excluding them for those reasons, then what are we excluding them for? Saying something like 'they're out because of X, Y, and Z' and following it up with 'they shouldn't be out because of X, Y, and Z' doesn't follow any sort of logic. Character has always been very selectively applied, and almost always to borderline cases. As said above, guys like Cobb didn't have to worry about it.

And I've never said I don't think PEDs help. I said we have to understand how much better a ballplayer, and not just weightlifter, they make you before we go around applying discounts.

And I'm not sure that Bonds would have a higher percentage of the vote if he was well liked. As far as anyone could tell, guys like McGwire and Sosa were fan and media favorites and got even fewer votes than Bonds. Piazza and Bagwell were well-liked and couldn't get in on the first and third ballots respectively because of suspicion, but no actual proof, of PED use. I see no way that you can say that a beloved Bonds would have gotten in this year or next.

[leadpipe]

Never said exclude them cause they are any of the above.

Never said there weren't guys without those qualities already in residence.

Just saying that if you're looking to get in the place, you'd be better served to play by the rules, tell the truth and not be a douchebag.

Take PED's out of it for a second 7, cause I know for some Godforsaken reason you don't think they help...but Barry Bonds, as well as local favorite Albert Belle lost MVP's chiefly because they were assholes.

By the way, not even sure why I'm writing this, and why it's news, hell, in any walk of life you're going to have a leg up by not being a jerk-off. And I'd wager that in pretty much every hall of fame, from high school athletics to a card playing hall, there are real "good guys" enshrined, that were not as good as some assholes that aren't.

If Barry Bonds weren't all of the above (or if you wanna leave out PED's) two of three of the above, they'd have a hell of a higher percentage than they had today. Would it be enough? Well, that would be tipped by the way voters feel about drugs, and as I mentioned before, it doesn't chap my ass either way. But I'd guess a beloved Barry Bonds gets in maybe not the first year, but the second.

You said they didn't get in because they were cheaters, liars and assholes. If we're not excluding them for those reasons, then what are we excluding them for? Saying something like 'they're out because of X, Y, and Z' and following it up with 'they shouldn't be out because of X, Y, and Z' doesn't follow any sort of logic. Character has always been very selectively applied, and almost always to borderline cases. As said above, guys like Cobb didn't have to worry about it.

And I've never said I don't think PEDs help. I said we have to understand how much better a ballplayer, and not just weightlifter, they make you before we go around applying discounts.

And I'm not sure that Bonds would have a higher percentage of the vote if he was well liked. As far as anyone could tell, guys like McGwire and Sosa were fan and media favorites and got even fewer votes than Bonds. Piazza and Bagwell were well-liked and couldn't get in on the first and third ballots respectively because of suspicion, but no actual proof, of PED use. I see no way that you can say that a beloved Bonds would have gotten in this year or next.

Really, we're going to argue the point that they didn't get in for one or a combination of those three reasons? How each individual weighs those things? How the hell would I know? Listen...I'm not going to get into this...got a headache....to be clear - slowly.....the fact that practically everyone on GGE considers Clemens and Bonds at least one of those things signifcantly hurts their cause.

That's it.

And by the way. My thoughts on Bonds are because he's Barry Bonds. Mark McGwire, Mike Piazza and Jeff Bagwell are not in the same class. Barry Bonds is arguably the best player of all-time if the ped shit doesn't ruffle you. So, a beloved Barry Bonds is different - much different than a beloved Mark McGwire.

And really, ANYONE who is more liked is gonna have a higher percentage of the vote. In just about anything in life, including this dopey Hall of Fame.

[peeker643]

If Ty fucking Cobb is in the HOF, all of these PED players should be in. Cobb stabbed a guy and beat up a fan with no hands.

Cobb had no hands?

Holy shit.

What he did on the field and off is remarkable uif you cnsider that. How do you hold a knife (or even a bat) if you have no hands.

Inconceivable...

[pup]

If Ty fucking Cobb is in the HOF, all of these PED players should be in. Cobb stabbed a guy and beat up a fan with no hands.

Cobb had no hands?

Holy shit.

What he did on the field and off is remarkable uif you cnsider that. How do you hold a knife (or even a bat) if you have no hands.

Inconceivable...

Must have been a shitload of kicks and headbutts in that fight. You can't nub someone to death can you?

[7foot3]

Really, we're going to argue the point that they didn't get in for one or a combination of those three reasons? How each individual weighs those things? How the hell would I know? Listen...I'm not going to get into this...got a headache....to be clear - slowly.....the fact that practically everyone on GGE considers Clemens and Bonds at least one of those things signifcantly hurts their cause.

That's it.

And by the way. My thoughts on Bonds are because he's Barry Bonds. Mark McGwire, Mike Piazza and Jeff Bagwell are not in the same class. Barry Bonds is arguably the best player of all-time if the ped shit doesn't ruffle you. So, a beloved Barry Bonds is different - much different than a beloved Mark McGwire.

And really, ANYONE who is more liked is gonna have a higher percentage of the vote. In just about anything in life, including this dopey Hall of Fame.

It's as if you didn't read a thing I said. You said "Never said exclude them cause they are any of the above." So I asked why they are being excluded.

If the PEDs don't ruffle you, how do you keep out McGwire, Sosa, Bagwell and Piazza? Sure, Bonds is clearly better than any of them, but the constant here is that PED suspicion, not even actual proof, is what is going to keep you out regardless of how nice you were. And, has been said multiple times now, jerks who are not even as good as Bonds sailed in easily. But go ahead and tell us your gut feeling again, and ignore all the evidence that suggest the opposite is true.

[swerb]

All kinds of cheaters in the Hall, obviously. To me that is not a license to put more of them in though.

Lots of assholes in the Hall too. It's not helping Bonds, but the reason he's not getting in because his head at one point grew to be the size of watermelon. Clemens going to TOR at age 40 and pitching like he was 23 again outta nowhere. Sosa, McGwire = cartoon characters. F em all. I wouldn't vote for any of them. Bags and Piazza were fringe HOF guys anyway. Those guys weren't juicin', they're not even in the discussion. Bonds and Clemens are the only two I would consider, as they were HOF caliber players before they started cheating rampantly.

[gotribe31]

I don't think the Leadman was saying how he'd vote, simply explaining the rationale (better or worse) that the writers used when they voted. And he's absolutely right; those are the three main reasons that guys didn't get in this year. I'd add a fourth, that being the sanctimonious and holier than thou nature of many the attention-whore writers with HOF votes.

Like someone pointed out on twitter this past weekend during the Stabby McStabberson lovefest that was occuring in Baltimore, Ray Lewis is a great example of the type of attention a player will get if he's nice to the media and provides good soundbites. If that guy was Barry Bonds to the media, all anyone would have been talking about was the "alleged" murders. Instead, he's the greatest LB ever and will walk into a job with ESPiN the day he retires from football.

[leadpipe]

Really, we're going to argue the point that they didn't get in for one or a combination of those three reasons? How each individual weighs those things? How the hell would I know? Listen...I'm not going to get into this...got a headache....to be clear - slowly.....the fact that practically everyone on GGE considers Clemens and Bonds at least one of those things signifcantly hurts their cause.

That's it.

And by the way. My thoughts on Bonds are because he's Barry Bonds. Mark McGwire, Mike Piazza and Jeff Bagwell are not in the same class. Barry Bonds is arguably the best player of all-time if the ped shit doesn't ruffle you. So, a beloved Barry Bonds is different - much different than a beloved Mark McGwire.

And really, ANYONE who is more liked is gonna have a higher percentage of the vote. In just about anything in life, including this dopey Hall of Fame.

It's as if you didn't read a thing I said. You said "Never said exclude them cause they are any of the above." So I asked why they are being excluded.

If the PEDs don't ruffle you, how do you keep out McGwire, Sosa, Bagwell and Piazza? Sure, Bonds is clearly better than any of them, but the constant here is that PED suspicion, not even actual proof, is what is going to keep you out regardless of how nice you were. And, has been said multiple times now, jerks who are not even as good as Bonds sailed in easily. But go ahead and tell us your gut feeling again, and ignore all the evidence that suggest the opposite is true.

You are the one that isn't either A. Reading or B. Comprehending.

Do I have to spell out that "cheating" in my first post alludes to PED use. (And, no, I'm not interested in the "How were they cheating" argument) Just humor me and easily understand what was inferred, as anyone else on GGE would do.

So, IN MY OPINION, Ped use is the chief actor. It is also MY OPINION that being an untruthful asshole does you zero good. Leading to MY OPINION that if Bonds had Jeter' reputation he'd have a much greater percentage right now, and might get in in the next few years.

That's my "gut feeling." Don't like it? Might wanna get off a sports message board, cause the GD thing is filled with gut feelings, which, you know, generate conversation.

Which is the point.

Lastly, I (Capital I) don't have a vote. Someone getting in using PED's doesn't ruffle me. The whole Hall of Fame deal has been the same sham it's been for years. There are guys with votes that wouln't know a baseball if it hit em between the eyes. If Barry, Sammy and Mark got in yesterday, I'd give as much a shit as I do today.

Why, every year there is hubbub over any sort of head scratching decision made by the Hall? Half those guys...for them to make a seemingly irrational decision is status quo. And the other half, when the circumstances are in play that have been created by this years candidates, well, the door is open to many reasons not to fill in that box.

And that was my whole point in the first post. How are we suprised. If you are a San Fran beat writer, on the fence about PED's, your vote might go one of two ways. If Barry Bonds was cordial and pleasant to you in his career your vote might go one way. If he was a petulant, arrogant, dismissive asshole it might go the other.

So, ok 7. PED's is the main reason they are out. But if you don't think being an asshole counts, join life.

[leadpipe]

I don't think the Leadman was saying how he'd vote, simply explaining the rationale (better or worse) that the writers used when they voted. And he's absolutely right; those are the three main reasons that guys didn't get in this year. I'd add a fourth, that being the sanctimonious and holier than thou nature of many the attention-whore writers with HOF votes.

Like someone pointed out on twitter this past weekend during the Stabby McStabberson lovefest that was occuring in Baltimore, Ray Lewis is a great example of the type of attention a player will get if he's nice to the media and provides good soundbites. If that guy was Barry Bonds to the media, all anyone would have been talking about was the "alleged" murders. Instead, he's the greatest LB ever and will walk into a job with ESPiN the day he retires from football.

Exactly.

[FUDU]

Not letting on Bonds, Clemens et al is a joke. A disgrace. These media guys are trying to whitewash baseball history because they failed to uncover the steroid use at the time, instead of after the fact. If they had done their jobs and investigated, who knows what would have happened. Instead, these people are trying to pretend that an entire generation of baseball didn't happen.

A joke and a shame.

You could say they are doing the opposite and acknowledging that an entire generation of baseball did happen, and it was unfortunate and basically wrong.

Otherwise meh, schmeh, bleh to all of it.

Bonds is really the only one who has a legit argument that he could/should be in at this point from that list of recent players. He WAS pretty damn good before PEDs, for a long time. Others, eh.

While I always loved Lofton I am a bit surprised he made it to the ballot. He was very good at one time, but it was a short amount of time. He dominated in his role but again for a short time. I think they paid him a respect for his longevity by even putting him up for a vote.

Also, I love that fact nobody got in, after all it is the HOF, at some point the candidates don;t measure up, so they don't get in.

[motherscratcher]

Not letting on Bonds, Clemens et al is a joke. A disgrace. These media guys are trying to whitewash baseball history because they failed to uncover the steroid use at the time, instead of after the fact. If they had done their jobs and investigated, who knows what would have happened. Instead, these people are trying to pretend that an entire generation of baseball didn't happen.

A joke and a shame.

You could say they are doing the opposite and acknowledging that an entire generation of baseball did happen, and it was unfortunate and basically wrong.

Otherwise meh, schmeh, bleh to all of it.

Bonds is really the only one who has a legit argument that he could/should be in at this point from that list of recent players. He WAS pretty damn good before PEDs, for a long time. Others, eh.

While I always loved Lofton I am a bit surprised he made it to the ballot. He was very good at one time, but it was a short amount of time. He dominated in his role but again for a short time. I think they paid him a respect for his longevity by even putting him up for a vote.

Also, I love that fact nobody got in, after all it is the HOF, at some point the candidates don;t measure up, so they don't get in.

Bonds is the only one who has a legit argument to be in? Clemens doesn't? Wow

You look at that list and come away with the opinion that the candidates don't measure up? Now's a good time to stop sniffing glue.

I also think that Lofton, while not a HOFer is underrated, and history will look back on his body of work with more appreciation than he is currently getting. Kind of like Raines but to a lesser extent.

[gotribe31]

Not letting on Bonds, Clemens et al is a joke. A disgrace. These media guys are trying to whitewash baseball history because they failed to uncover the steroid use at the time, instead of after the fact. If they had done their jobs and investigated, who knows what would have happened. Instead, these people are trying to pretend that an entire generation of baseball didn't happen.

A joke and a shame.

You could say they are doing the opposite and acknowledging that an entire generation of baseball did happen, and it was unfortunate and basically wrong.

Otherwise meh, schmeh, bleh to all of it.

Bonds is really the only one who has a legit argument that he could/should be in at this point from that list of recent players. He WAS pretty damn good before PEDs, for a long time. Others, eh.

While I always loved Lofton I am a bit surprised he made it to the ballot. He was very good at one time, but it was a short amount of time. He dominated in his role but again for a short time. I think they paid him a respect for his longevity by even putting him up for a vote.

Also, I love that fact nobody got in, after all it is the HOF, at some point the candidates don;t measure up, so they don't get in.

Making it to the ballot is hardly a big deal. Aaron freaking Sele made it to the ballot and even got one vote. If they don't get at least 5%, they fall off the ballot which is what happened to Lofton. He was the best leadoff man and CF in baseball for nearly a decade, and is one of the best defensive CF of all time by both the eye test and the more sabermetric methods of measuring defense.

I also don't get your logic on Bonds/Clemens, and really don't know what you mean when you say that the candidates don't measure up especially after you say Bonds should get it.

[FUDU]

Not letting on Bonds, Clemens et al is a joke. A disgrace. These media guys are trying to whitewash baseball history because they failed to uncover the steroid use at the time, instead of after the fact. If they had done their jobs and investigated, who knows what would have happened. Instead, these people are trying to pretend that an entire generation of baseball didn't happen.

A joke and a shame.

You could say they are doing the opposite and acknowledging that an entire generation of baseball did happen, and it was unfortunate and basically wrong.

Otherwise meh, schmeh, bleh to all of it.

Bonds is really the only one who has a legit argument that he could/should be in at this point from that list of recent players. He WAS pretty damn good before PEDs, for a long time. Others, eh.

While I always loved Lofton I am a bit surprised he made it to the ballot. He was very good at one time, but it was a short amount of time. He dominated in his role but again for a short time. I think they paid him a respect for his longevity by even putting him up for a vote.

Also, I love that fact nobody got in, after all it is the HOF, at some point the candidates don;t measure up, so they don't get in.

Bonds is the only one who has a legit argument to be in? Clemens doesn't? Wow

You look at that list and come away with the opinion that the candidates don't measure up? Now's a good time to stop sniffing glue.

I also think that Lofton, while not a HOFer is underrated, and history will look back on his body of work with more appreciation than he is currently getting. Kind of like Raines but to a lesser extent.

I agree Kenny was underrated at a point in his career, and often under appreciated. For me I just don't see it equating to a HOF career.

RE: Clemens, look at his career (I'll go get it for you, BRB, OK got it http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/clemero02.shtml). Stud for first 7 years, no doubt. Then essentially fell off the map for the next 4. So if he retired at that point is he HOF? I can see an argument either way, but longevity wouldn't have been on his side, and that sudden fade always sticks with those super genius voters. Arguable though.

Then 13 years in, at age 34 he miraculously becomes a stud again? Did he find God too?

IMO he doesn't get in based on his first 11 years, not b/c he wasn't exceptional b/c he was, but for only 7 years, then he lost something either due to time or lack of work effort to stay on top.

[FUDU]

Not letting on Bonds, Clemens et al is a joke. A disgrace. These media guys are trying to whitewash baseball history because they failed to uncover the steroid use at the time, instead of after the fact. If they had done their jobs and investigated, who knows what would have happened. Instead, these people are trying to pretend that an entire generation of baseball didn't happen.

A joke and a shame.

You could say they are doing the opposite and acknowledging that an entire generation of baseball did happen, and it was unfortunate and basically wrong.

Otherwise meh, schmeh, bleh to all of it.

Bonds is really the only one who has a legit argument that he could/should be in at this point from that list of recent players. He WAS pretty damn good before PEDs, for a long time. Others, eh.

While I always loved Lofton I am a bit surprised he made it to the ballot. He was very good at one time, but it was a short amount of time. He dominated in his role but again for a short time. I think they paid him a respect for his longevity by even putting him up for a vote.

Also, I love that fact nobody got in, after all it is the HOF, at some point the candidates don;t measure up, so they don't get in.

Making it to the ballot is hardly a big deal. Aaron freaking Sele made it to the ballot and even got one vote. If they don't get at least 5%, they fall off the ballot which is what happened to Lofton. He was the best leadoff man and CF in baseball for nearly a decade, and is one of the best defensive CF of all time by both the eye test and the more sabermetric methods of measuring defense.

I also don't get your logic on Bonds/Clemens, and really don't know what you mean when you say that the candidates don't measure up especially after you say Bonds should get it.

Tens years at the top for Lofton? I just can't agree with that. I loved the guy, but rating him among the best year in and year out was hard after awhile b/c he became fragile and limited.

RE: Bonds, if you pick his PED start date even as early as mid to late 90's (which IMO is too early) and judge only his career prior to that I think he gets in will little trouble, and I wouldn't have had a problem with it.

So I guess the question becomes if we put him in do we acknowledge only his pre PED career and #s? No way that happens.

Plus Bonds has a way better strat card than Clemens.

[peeker643]

The BBWAA election rules say "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."

Pretty big pothole in the middle of 'record, ability and contributions to the team' if you were caught up in the PED age or if you're simply an asshole. Because even a drug-free asshole will be scrutinized as to integrity, sportsmanship and character which are all subjective enough to fit an agenda.

Spare me the 'Days of Yore' stories about old timers and greenies and drunken racists. The difference between the media today and the media then is similar to the difference between athletes and sports from then til now. It's a totally different world. Unless maybe all the black newspaper and ESPN reporters back in Ty Cobb's days simply overlooked his faults and decided they'd vote him in anyway.

I've sat in a few different press boxes and I've been around enough writers to know that they're lazy, jaded and miserable. If they can make some of these guys miserable too, in what amounts to the players' only day of reckoning with some media guys they ignored or mistreated for years, well, these writers will take their swings the one time they can.

Doesn't cost a thing to be personable, respectful and humane for these players.

Might cost a shitload to not be.

[gotribe31]

Not letting on Bonds, Clemens et al is a joke. A disgrace. These media guys are trying to whitewash baseball history because they failed to uncover the steroid use at the time, instead of after the fact. If they had done their jobs and investigated, who knows what would have happened. Instead, these people are trying to pretend that an entire generation of baseball didn't happen.

A joke and a shame.

You could say they are doing the opposite and acknowledging that an entire generation of baseball did happen, and it was unfortunate and basically wrong.

Otherwise meh, schmeh, bleh to all of it.

Bonds is really the only one who has a legit argument that he could/should be in at this point from that list of recent players. He WAS pretty damn good before PEDs, for a long time. Others, eh.

While I always loved Lofton I am a bit surprised he made it to the ballot. He was very good at one time, but it was a short amount of time. He dominated in his role but again for a short time. I think they paid him a respect for his longevity by even putting him up for a vote.

Also, I love that fact nobody got in, after all it is the HOF, at some point the candidates don;t measure up, so they don't get in.

Making it to the ballot is hardly a big deal. Aaron freaking Sele made it to the ballot and even got one vote. If they don't get at least 5%, they fall off the ballot which is what happened to Lofton. He was the best leadoff man and CF in baseball for nearly a decade, and is one of the best defensive CF of all time by both the eye test and the more sabermetric methods of measuring defense.

I also don't get your logic on Bonds/Clemens, and really don't know what you mean when you say that the candidates don't measure up especially after you say Bonds should get it.

Tens years at the top for Lofton? I just can't agree with that. I loved the guy, but rating him among the best year in and year out was hard after awhile b/c he became fragile and limited.

RE: Bonds, if you pick his PED start date even as early as mid to late 90's (which IMO is too early) and judge only his career prior to that I think he gets in will little trouble, and I wouldn't have had a problem with it.

So I guess the question becomes if we put him in do we acknowledge only his pre PED career and #s? No way that happens.

Plus Bonds has a way better strat card than Clemens.

Did you look at Lofton's #'s, or are you just going off of memory?

If Bill Mazeroski is a Hall of Famer, so is Kenny Lofton. Kenny was much, much better offensively (even normalized to the era) and just as good defensively at a more important position on the field.

[Erie Warrior]

So when does Charlie Hustle get in?

Electing him on this ballot was the move. Really show 'em something.