Handicapping the 2013 Hall of Fame Ballot

[FedEx227]

I listened to him today and he sounded like a moron. Then they brought Heyman on!

[Senser81]

I listened to him today and he sounded like a moron. Then they brought Heyman on!

It seems like if they talk to a writer for a few minutes every couple weeks, thats fine. But when they make guest hosts out of writers, and let them ramble for an entire morning, they invariably sound like idiots.

[FedEx227]

Rozner sits in for Boers every so often and he's usually not that bad. He's just not that smart of a baseball mind but he's relatively entertaining.

[Senser81]

Rozner sits in for Boers every so often and he's usually not that bad. He's just not that smart of a baseball mind but he's relatively entertaining.

True, I would much rather have Rozner than Boers.

[EmpireWF]

Bill Madden essentially wrote everyone whining about what happened needs to stfu. My deal with his explanation (which is he wants to wait in case we find out Piazza was using) is it's ridiculous. He actually said he had concerns with the fact Piazza pushed his books release until after the HOF vote.

Really?

I've heard this pro-Bonds/steroid argument this morning...that the Baseball HOF should be a museum which portrays the history of the game thus guys like Bonds should be in because they are a part of baseball history, but thats not really what this is about IMO. The Baseball HOF has artifacts and other historical footnotes about the game's history, but this is about voting in the most deserving players. Its two different things. If someone were to write a book titled "The History of Baseball", and another person were to write a book titled "Baseball's Greatest Players", would the two books be exactly the same? Of course not. The history of baseball doesn't consist entirely of great players.

So if a guy feels that Barry Bonds isn't deserving of the HOF, I don't see how that should by trumped by some "history of the game" tangent.

The argument goes that the HOF is about the greatest players in the game. Nobody can say Bonds and Clemens weren't the best of their generation. So, by not voting for them, it's about personal vendettas and not about putting the best in.

[Warner2BruceTD]

It's a fucking museum.

I used to be a hard marker, but now I don't give a fuck. These writers need to get off their high horse.

People have it backwards. Putting in the wrong guy every now & then doesn't kill the credibility, leaving out Mike Piazza or Jeff Bagwell does.

[dell71]

What I don't understand is how next year or in a few years, some of these guys will get in. As if somehow, by not playing, they are more deserving. Something also tells me, that if you asked these guys if they feel like Biggio deserves to get in, more than 75% would say yes but they probably feel like he doesn't deserve first ballot status.

For a long time, I've been saying that whether this guy or that is "1st ballot" HOFer is utter nonsense. Like Senser said, there's no special wing for it. Either a guy belongs in the Hall or he doesn't.

Piazza not being voted in is absolutely absurd.

Biggio is definitely the first guy with 3K hits not to go in on his 1st ballot at least since WWII.

Schilling belongs.

[Senser81]

The argument goes that the HOF is about the greatest players in the game. Nobody can say Bonds and Clemens weren't the best of their generation. So, by not voting for them, it's about personal vendettas and not about putting the best in.

But the counter-argument is that the voters aren't putting in the "greatest" players, they are putting in the "most deserving" players. The distinction being that guys like Bonds, Clemens, Joe Jackson, Pete Rose, etc. are, for one reason or another, not deserving of the HOF. In other words, when a voter looks at the names on the ballot, his question is "Does this guy deserve to be in the HOF?", not "Was this guy a great player?".

I don't agree with that counter-argument, but I do understand it. Just sayin.

[FedEx227]

Here's the god damn list they should be using:

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?
2. Was he the best player on his team?
3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?
4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?
5. Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?
6. Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
7. Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?
8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?
10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?
11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?
12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?
13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?
14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?
15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

Which if you want to have fun and still support Morris, run down that list. A buddy and I did it and Morris has probably 6 of those.

[EmpireWF]

But the counter-argument is that the voters aren't putting in the "greatest" players, they are putting in the "most deserving" players. The distinction being that guys like Bonds, Clemens, Joe Jackson, Pete Rose, etc. are, for one reason or another, not deserving of the HOF. In other words, when a voter looks at the names on the ballot, his question is "Does this guy deserve to be in the HOF?", not "Was this guy a great player?".

I don't agree with that counter-argument, but I do understand it. Just sayin.

You don't agree with it like most logical thinking people because it's stupid.


...I'll presume.

[Senser81]

You don't agree with it like most logical thinking people because it's stupid.


...I'll presume.

Its stupid, but its also allowable...


Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

[FedEx227]

With that, though, you could remove about half the guys in the Hall.

Known cocaine users, wife beaters, racists, etc.

[Senser81]

With that, though, you could remove about half the guys in the Hall.

Known cocaine users, wife beaters, racists, etc.

I agree. Its drawn up like the powers that the Commissioner has...basically any situation can be trumped by "Best interests of baseball" clause. Pretty stupid, but it is what it is.