Article: Running Down the Hall (of Fame Ballot): 2019 Edition

[Cody Christie]

Debating the resumes of Hall candidates has become contentious in recent years. The steroid era clouded the results of this hallowed ground. Two players, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, might have been the all-time best hitter and pitcher. Neither has gotten the call from Cooperstown.

 

This year’s class is shaping up to be one of the biggest in history. Two players, Lee Smith and Harold Baines, have already been elected by the 16-member electorate of the Today’s Game Era ballot.

 

If I was lucky enough to have a ballot, this is how I would vote.Class of 2019

Roy Halladay: Tragically, Halladay won’t be in Cooperstown to give an acceptance speech. He crashed his plane into the Gulf of Mexico in November 2017. Halladay might be the last pitcher of a former era. He compiled 67 complete games in his career and he needed fewer than 100 pitches in 14 of those complete games. Halladay won two Cy Young awards (2003, 2010) and he finished in the top-five another five times. There may not be another pitcher like Halladay.

 

Edgar Martinez: With the recent election of Baines, it makes no sense to keep Martinez out of the hall. He is one of the best designated hitters of all-time and he is in his final year on the ballot. Paul Molitor spend 44% of his career playing DH and Frank Thomas spend 57% of his career at DH. Both have been elected to the Hall. He received over 70% of the vote in 2018 so he should easily break the 75% threshold in the current election cycle.

 

Mariano Rivera: Rivera utilized one of the best pitches, a cut fastball, in baseball history to become one of the best pitchers in baseball history. He set the all-time record for saves (652) but he might be most remembered for his dominance during postseason play. He was part of five World Series winners and he collected the final outs in four of those championship seasons. Rivera was also a great influence off the field and he could end up with one of the highest voting percentages in Hall of Fame history.

 

Future Inductions

Mike Mussina: Mussina’s long career stacks up well, especially when compared to the era that he pitched in. Other pitchers from the era have garnered more recognition but Mussina was strong throughout his career. In one 10-year stretch, he received Cy Young votes in eight different seasons. After finishing at 63.5% in 2018, he’s going to be borderline this year to get in. I think he has to wait one more year and he will be part of the Class of 2020.

 

Omar Vizquel: Vizquel follows the mold of Ozzie Smith in the fact that nearly all of his value came on the defensive side of the ball. Think of him as the anti-Edgar Martinez, whose value came completely on the offensive side. His 11 Gold Gloves at shortstop are second most all-time behind Smith. Smith was a first ballot Hall of Famer. Every shortstop ahead of him on the all-time hits lists is enshrined in Cooperstown or on their way. He should get in, but he will need to gain more support in the years to come.

 

May Never Get In (But Still On My Ballot)

Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Larry Walker, Andrew Jones, Todd Helton

Bonds and Clemens are two of the greatest players of all time but their connection to the steroid era has kept them out of Cooperstown. Walker continues to gain ground, but recent crowded ballots have kept him from getting elected. He is in his ninth year of eligibility, which means 2020 will be his last opportunity on the writer’s ballot. Jones is a long way from being elected in his second year on the ballot. He is one of the best defensive players of all-time and I think he will can some traction in the years ahead. Helton gets little support due to playing his entire career in Colorado. Still his offensive accolades put him on the borderline for enshrinement.

 

To be transparent, some things have changed on my ballot from last year to this year. I correctly predicted the four players who would be elected last year (Vladimir Guerrero, Trevor Hoffman, Chipper Jones, and Jim Thome). I have replaced those four players on this year’s ballot with two first time candidates (Halladay, Rivera), while adding three new candidates (Walker, Jones, and Helton).

 

Johan Santana fell off the ballot in his first year of eligibility, but I tried to make his case in a series of posts last year. If you missed any of the series on Johan Santana’s Cooperstown Case, there were three parts to the series. The first post looked at the Kirby Puckett Clause and how it can be applied to Santana. The second article touched on the similarities in careers between Santana and the great Sandy Koufax. The third and final piece touched on his missing third Cy Young.

 

Here is the official list of players available to be voted for by the BBWAA. Who makes your list? Leave a COMMENT and start the discussion.

 

Click here to view the article

[D.C Twins]

Agree with all.

 

Clemens and Bonds simply can never be let in.

 

Yes, others likely got into the HOF having taken some PEDs (and yes, gulp, my childhood hero Kirby Puckett could very well have been one of them for reasons that I wish to ignore)

 

But they were caught and there need to be consequences, because it's not like they will every have to give any of their 100s of millions of dollars back.

[beckmt]

PED's are a difficult subject as noone  knows he good the player would have been without them.  This is just my take(and in no way a justification for what they did).  I feel Clemens may well have had an HOF career (albet shorter) without the PED's, but I saw his stuff early on and it had that potention. 

Bonds and Arod both transformed themselves into manmountians from their early career to what we saw later. That was hard to ignore(and also hard to tell how much this affected their numbers).  So it is much more difficult to let those players in as they may have been very good instead of great.

[mikelink45]

No to Clemens and Bonds.  Look at Clemens records for 1993 - 1996 with the Red Sox.  Would they have let him go to Toronto if he looked like HOF?  NO, then he suddenly becomes a 20 game winner and a horse like he had been when he was younger - is that just from breathing Canadian air?

 

Bonds had over 45 home runs once 1986 - 1999, then the publicity from McGwire and Sosa drive him crazy and he suddenly gets big headed (literally) and cranks 73 followed by 46,45,45. Nothing suspicious there.

These two were caught.  They destroyed the way we look at stats.  No one is excited by 73 or 70 for that matter.  We still talk about 60,61 with reverence.  They do not belong!  They can form their own little hall, buy a house in Cooperstown and hang their photos with Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose and Ed Cicotte, Lefty Williams, Chick Gandil, Fred McMullin, Swede Risberg, Happy Felsch, and Buck Weaver.    There are 10 more names, but you get the idea.  

 

 

[nicksaviking]

I wouldn't vote for Bonds or Clemens but my view of the HOF has changed from seeing it as some kind of sacred tiered referendum to just honoring players who sportswriters and former players want to acknowledge, so I'm not going to be upset about who gets in any longer.

[strumdatjaguar]

Pete Rose gets in before Bonds and Clemons.   

[redstorm]

 

 

Edgar Martinez: With the recent election of Baines, it makes no sense to keep Martinez out of the hall.
 

 

Sadly, this logic can be applied to many players with the election of Baines. Not to say Edgar doesn't deserve it, because I also believe he does.

Edited January 3, 2019 by redstorm

[jmlease1]

Freakin' Bonds and Clemens. Great players. great even before PEDs. Almost certainly enhanced the latter half of their careers with chemicals, knew they were breaking the rules (possibly the law), and simply didn't care. Part of me wants to get it over with so we don't have to talk about them any longer, part of me wants to punt the decision down the road so we're further removed from the emotion of it. Part of me thinks they deserve to be in regardless, part of me doesn't want them rewarded for their crap-weaselry.

 

I would not vote for Vizquel, despite enjoying his play for many, many years. His flash disguised the fact that he wasn't always as great defensively as his rep, and while he has a ton of hits for a SS, he also played forever. Offensively, he just wasn't very good; superficially he looks a lot like Ozzie Smith, but Vizquel played in a much higher scoring era and simply wasn't as good defensively. The last 5 years he was just a guy hanging around, and he had too many years where he was just an ok starter, and not enough years where he played like an all-star. (there's a reason he only went 3 times: he didn't deserve it more, it wasn't just because of guys like A-Rod, Jeter, and Nomar blocking him. they were just better)

 

I would add Scott Rolen to my ballot. terrific defensively, and had a great combination of power and patience that played very well. He's a better version of Graig Nettles (who deserved more consideration, frankly) and as valuable as Ron Santo. If Rolen had been a bit healthier, he'd be an easy choice for everyone, but the numbers are there.

 

I'm not sure about Andruw Jones (gotta spell it with the "U"!). Huge peak. staggeringly great defensive player his first half of his career. Was cooked at 31. An amazing fall that was at least partially self-inflicted. I just don't know if he's a Hall of Famer.

 

Larry Walker, 100% yes. amazing 5-tool player who hit everywhere he played, not just Colorado (where he did indeed have video game stats). remember, OPS+ accounts for park effects, and he still had redonkulous numbers any time he was healthy. I blame that awful turf in montreal, but he hit like crazy up there too. Terrific defender (great arm, great range in RF) and wonderful baserunner too.

 

not sure about Helton, but would consider. Like Jones, a huge peak. Like Jones, pretty fast falloff. 

 

Yes on Edgar, Moose, Mariano, and Doc Halladay.

[jkcarew]

Agree with the argument for Martinez. And fwiw, it's unlikely that he would have been a worse first-baseman than Frank Thomas if Seattle had chosen (or needed) to play him there at any point. The point being, that we're already honoring those that contributed value only with the bat.

 

Among the names in the article, I vote yet to Halladay, Martinez, Rivera, Mussina and Vizquel. Not sure, maybe at some point to Helton and Jones. No to all the others.

[ChrisKnutson]

I gotta go with Schilling, Bonds, Clemens, Martinez, Mussina, and Rivera.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Posnanski has an article with some great background about the lack of a unanimous yes vote, and why that should end with this year's class. (sub req)

 

snippet:

 

Four schmoes don’t vote for Cobb? The BBWAA screws up the DiMaggio vote? A few writers for odd, unknown, probably petty reasons don’t vote for Musial, Mays or Aaron, Ripken, Griffey or Maddux? This isn’t a tradition. 

 

No, it’s an accident of randomness, negligence, stupidity and personal vendettas.

 

https://theathletic.com/733813/2018/12/26/posnanski-how-the-lack-of-hall-of-fame-unanimity-became-a-thing-and-why-it-should-end-with-mariano-rivera

[AlwaysinModeration]

Bonds and Clemens are two of the ten or so best players of all time. They should be in the Hall of Fame. They took steroids, when the league wasn’t testing for steroids. They faced off against PED users, and were better than them. They are a part of why the league changed their stance on testing.

 

I think they will get in. Each year more older voters stop voting and take their no votes with them, and more young voters come online and vote for them. They both topped 50% last year, and are tracking for 60%+ this year. I think they get in next year or the year after.

 

Schilling should also get in.

 

This doesn’t mean that I think these are necessarily good guys, or have morally acceptable views, or were good teammates. But they were great ballplayers. And that’s what the Hall of Fame is - a showcase of the games great. A Hall without them doesn’t make sense.

 

As for others, Halladay, Edgar, Mussina, Walker. Mariano, sure (although has anyone done a stats comparison between Johan and Mariano? Johan has better career numbers than Halladay through age 31, before the Mets shredded Johan’s shoulder to get a no-hitter.). For the last two, I’d say Rolen and Berkman.

[Mr. Brooks]

Bonds and Clemens are two of the ten or so best players of all time. They should be in the Hall of Fame. They took steroids, when the league wasn’t testing for steroids. They faced off against PED users, and were better than them. They are a part of why the league changed their stance on testing.

 

I think they will get in. Each year more older voters stop voting and take their no votes with them, and more young voters come online and vote for them. They both topped 50% last year, and are tracking for 60%+ this year. I think they get in next year or the year after.

 

Schilling should also get in.

 

This doesn’t mean that I think these are necessarily good guys, or have morally acceptable views, or were good teammates. But they were great ballplayers. And that’s what the Hall of Fame is - a showcase of the games great. A Hall without them doesn’t make sense.

 

As for others, Halladay, Edgar, Mussina, Walker. Mariano, sure (although has anyone done a stats comparison between Johan and Mariano? Johan has better career numbers than Halladay through age 31, before the Mets shredded Johan’s shoulder to get a no-hitter.). For the last two, I’d say Rolen and Berkman.

Unlike the other major sports, the baseball hof has a morals clause.

[ashbury]

Unlike the other major sports, the baseball hof has a morals clause.

Well, "character" is one among several explicit criteria. From the Hall's statement of the rules for election:

 

5. Voting: 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.

 

I applaud that character is permitted to be considered by the voters. But there isn't a separate statement about morals, such as "only those of high morals may be selected," which a phrase like "morals clause" will imply to some readers. And the voters are at liberty to weight these various criteria any way they see fit. If eventually the voters elect Bonds or Clemens, there is no clause in the voting rules saying they shouldn't have.

[Mr. Brooks]

Well, "character" is one among several explicit criteria. From the Hall's statement of the rules for election:

 

5. Voting: 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.

 

I applaud that character is permitted to be considered by the voters. But there isn't a separate statement about morals, such as "only those of high morals may be selected," which a phrase like "morals clause" will imply to some readers. And the voters are at liberty to weight these various criteria any way they see fit. If eventually the voters elect Bonds or Clemens, there is no clause in the voting rules saying they shouldn't have.

Sorry, poor phrasing.

This is what I meant.

The voters can, and IMO should consider character and integrity. The post I was responding to seemed to suggest that cheating (Bonds/Clemens) and despicable views (Schilling) weren't relevant.

Edited January 4, 2019 by Mr. Brooks

[AlwaysinModeration]

Sorry, poor phrasing.

This is what I meant.

The voters can, and IMO should consider character and integrity. The post I was responding to seemed to suggest that cheating (Bonds/Clemens) and despicable views (Schilling) weren't relevant.

I didn’t say they aren’t relevant. And I’m very aware of the “character” consideration in the HOF vote. The fact that not only were Bonds and Clemens not near-unanimous first ballot HOFers, they have languished on the ballot and their inclusion is hotly debated every year shows quite clearly that many voters are taking the character clause quite seriously.

 

IIRC, the same year that Bonds offered to play for league minimum yet was blackballed by every club, MLB put admitted PED user Jason Giambi on the “last player” ballot for the All Star Game, and the Yankees ran a big campaign on his behalf with MLB’s blessing.

 

The whole era was poorly handled, with all sorts of mixed messages. And now the same writers who blithely looked the other way while the homers piled up are moralizing with their votes.

 

Meanwhile, Jeff Bagwell and Mike Piazza are in the Hall already, sailing in ahead of Barry Bonds. Do we know they are clean?

 

Just vote them in already, put up a special exhibit about the PEDs era, and let’s move on to better arguments. Like whether Mauer will be first ballot.

[TopGunn#22]

No to Bonds and Clemens.  EVER.

[biggentleben]

 

PED's are a difficult subject as noone  knows he good the player would have been without them.  This is just my take(and in no way a justification for what they did).  I feel Clemens may well have had an HOF career (albet shorter) without the PED's, but I saw his stuff early on and it had that potention. 

Bonds and Arod both transformed themselves into manmountians from their early career to what we saw later. That was hard to ignore(and also hard to tell how much this affected their numbers).  So it is much more difficult to let those players in as they may have been very good instead of great.

 

Bonds notably made his changes after the 1998 home run race. At that time, he had played 13 seasons with 411 HR, 445 SB, and a .290/.411/.556 career line, good for a 164 OPS+. He'd won 3 MVP awards, finished in the top 5 in MVP voting four other seasons, won 8 Gold Gloves, and was widely considered the most dynamic player in the game.

 

Just for mark on his line...at the time, the 400/400 club was an exclusive club. He's still the only member of it, and he's extended it to the 500/500 club, something we may never see another player ever do, and something he likely would have achieved without any additional substance.

 

You want to get into performance enhancement, we can start discussing the shots Mickey Mantle was getting from his doctor. We can discuss animal testosterone shots being utilized before Babe Ruth ever stepped onto a major league field. Acting as if players of that era were the only ones that have ever done it and/or should be shamed for partaking in something as common as the greenies and cocaine in the clubhouses at other times in baseball history is just absurd.

 

FWIW, no one ever died in the game due to PEDs. The same can not be said about amphetamines, and the player that passed can thank a certain revered HOFer that may be the last player that the media ever gave full clubhouse protection to, as that HOFer hooked him up with someone who could get him the best uppers available. Not a coincidence that so many players of the heavy greenie era have passed from heart attack.

 

Gaylord Perry is in the Hall, and he is well-known for doctoring baseballs on the mound. The HOF is full of racists that refused to allow men of another race into their league for nearly 100 years. Those players with failed tests once the league started testing (and I do mean legit, punishable tests, not the Mitchell report leak, which has been found to be inaccurate on many of the names implicated as having failed the initial round of testing) are a tougher sell, and I can respect that. Manny Ramirez having little HOF traction in spite of his numbers makes perfect sense. Guys who never failed a test are no different from players in the 30s, 50s, or 70s who put up gaudy stats at certain times, but also had readily available PEDs in their clubhouses. Why suspicion of one is acceptable and not the other?

[beckmt]

 

Bonds notably made his changes after the 1998 home run race. At that time, he had played 13 seasons with 411 HR, 445 SB, and a .290/.411/.556 career line, good for a 164 OPS+. He'd won 3 MVP awards, finished in the top 5 in MVP voting four other seasons, won 8 Gold Gloves, and was widely considered the most dynamic player in the game.

 

Just for mark on his line...at the time, the 400/400 club was an exclusive club. He's still the only member of it, and he's extended it to the 500/500 club, something we may never see another player ever do, and something he likely would have achieved without any additional substance.

 

You want to get into performance enhancement, we can start discussing the shots Mickey Mantle was getting from his doctor. We can discuss animal testosterone shots being utilized before Babe Ruth ever stepped onto a major league field. Acting as if players of that era were the only ones that have ever done it and/or should be shamed for partaking in something as common as the greenies and cocaine in the clubhouses at other times in baseball history is just absurd.

 

FWIW, no one ever died in the game due to PEDs. The same can not be said about amphetamines, and the player that passed can thank a certain revered HOFer that may be the last player that the media ever gave full clubhouse protection to, as that HOFer hooked him up with someone who could get him the best uppers available. Not a coincidence that so many players of the heavy greenie era have passed from heart attack.

 

Gaylord Perry is in the Hall, and he is well-known for doctoring baseballs on the mound. The HOF is full of racists that refused to allow men of another race into their league for nearly 100 years. Those players with failed tests once the league started testing (and I do mean legit, punishable tests, not the Mitchell report leak, which has been found to be inaccurate on many of the names implicated as having failed the initial round of testing) are a tougher sell, and I can respect that. Manny Ramirez having little HOF traction in spite of his numbers makes perfect sense. Guys who never failed a test are no different from players in the 30s, 50s, or 70s who put up gaudy stats at certain times, but also had readily available PEDs in their clubhouses. Why suspicion of one is acceptable and not the other?

You make a great point.  Did not realize there were other ways to cheat going to way back when.  I guess when you consider it, the lessor quality in the earlier era and lack of relief pitching like now makes all this a moving standard. (or a double standard depending how you want to phrase it). Perry was a case I would have had issues with, since he would not have been nearly as good with doctoring the baseball(and that was against the rules).  Maybe I am a purist, but am coming to realize that in this era stats will never be as good and if anyone is to get in standards will have to change.

[ashbury]

Maybe I am a purist, but am coming to realize that in this era stats will never be as good and if anyone is to get in standards will have to change.

I find it appealing to know that the HoF's voting rules specify that automatic standards are not to be applied. It's assumed that voters should use their judgement. If eras change, voters should take that into account. The fact that nobody hits .400 or wins 30 games anymore doesn't mean the players all turned crappy or anything.

[Doctor Wu]

 

Pete Rose gets in before Bonds and Clemons.   

 

I don't think Rose is ever going to make it ... at least not in his lifetime. I think most of the writers would rather pick a Bonds or Clemens than Rose.

[Doctor Wu]

 

 

You make a great point.  Did not realize there were other ways to cheat going to way back when.  I guess when you consider it, the lessor quality in the earlier era and lack of relief pitching like now makes all this a moving standard. (or a double standard depending how you want to phrase it). Perry was a case I would have had issues with, since he would not have been nearly as good with doctoring the baseball(and that was against the rules).  Maybe I am a purist, but am coming to realize that in this era stats will never be as good and if anyone is to get in standards will have to change.

You both make good points. At some point we need to be honest with ourselves and realize that each generation of players were doing things to "enhance" their performance, whether it was popping pills, using steroids, throwing spitballs, or scuffing the ball. That's just been part of this game for as long as I can remember. Not saying that's a good thing or that I'm comfortable with it, but it's a reality.

[Doctor Wu]

Thinking about Johan Santana and his great but abbreviated career, I think he warrants consideration for this hall. But then you'd have to also think about once great players like Dale Murphy and Andruw Jones who flamed out at a relatively early age. Again, I'm not saying they deserve to be in the Hall, maybe they do, but it's worth discussion,

[Squirrel]

You both make good points. At some point we need to be honest with ourselves and realize that each generation of players were doing things to "enhance" their performance, whether it was popping pills, using steroids, throwing spitballs, or scuffing the ball. That's just been part of this game for as long as I can remember. Not saying that's a good thing or that I'm comfortable with it, but it's a reality.

Maybe the answer is to not have a place to immortalize only a select few players and to not have a process where only a few who played the game are enshrined. I know there are great players whose talents were just, well, more, but they didn’t do it completely alone. They had teammates. They had coaches and managers. Scouts and owners who gave them their shot. Family and friends who supported them. <shrug> I guess I’m one who thinks the HOF is kind of overrated. The game, that’s what I love. And all the players who make it come to life, not just the superstars. They don’t do it alone and aren’t often the ones who ... make it entertaining. What about players like Astudillo who will never reach HOF status but who is someone you’d buy a ticket to see play? Yeah, I think the HOF is overrated and not filled with everyone who makes this game what it is.

[Don Walcott]

I find the argument for Bonds (pre and post-1998) interesting. If we could put an asterisk on his plaque and separate out his statistics pre1998 and post-1998, I might agree. Clemens was not on his way to the HOF when he started juicing to revive his stalled career.

 

My problem with either of them being inducted, is how do you explain not putting Sosa, McGwire and Palmeiro in the HOF (and A-Rod)?

 

I also don't like the "everyone else was doing it" argument, because it justifies anyone doing anything in any era to cheat in any way (even destructive and illegal ways), so long as they aren't the only ones cheating. Pete Rose may or may not deserve to be inducted based on his gambling (which had no affect on his performance). But at least he didn't encourage a generation of young aspiring players to do something illegal and harmful to their health in order to succeed. Rose is a cautionary tale for other reasons, but at least he's not the poster boy for why you should cheat to get ahead in life. I think putting known PED users in the HOF sends a bad message - like putting Bud Selig in the HOF.

[biggentleben]

 

I find the argument for Bonds (pre and post-1998) interesting. If we could put an asterisk on his plaque and separate out his statistics pre1998 and post-1998, I might agree. Clemens was not on his way to the HOF when he started juicing to revive his stalled career.

 

My problem with either of them being inducted, is how do you explain not putting Sosa, McGwire and Palmeiro in the HOF (and A-Rod)?

 

I also don't like the "everyone else was doing it" argument, because it justifies anyone doing anything in any era to cheat in any way (even destructive and illegal ways), so long as they aren't the only ones cheating. Pete Rose may or may not deserve to be inducted based on his gambling (which had no affect on his performance). But at least he didn't encourage a generation of young aspiring players to do something illegal and harmful to their health in order to succeed. Rose is a cautionary tale for other reasons, but at least he's not the poster boy for why you should cheat to get ahead in life. I think putting known PED users in the HOF sends a bad message - like putting Bud Selig in the HOF.

 

Multiple reports at the time he was banned were that Rose bet on his own team. That would absolutely change how he may manage the team. Some of those reports have been called into question, but nothing has ever completely removed suspicion of Rose betting on the team he was managing. That's a major no-no.

 

There's also way more than an "everyone else was doing it" to the 1990s. I put out a piece about a year ago with a lot of research on the offense in the 1990s, and many did similar last year on the 30th anniversary of the home run chase. The basic underlying theme: there were a lot of things going on beyond PEDs. Two expansions within 5 years, all but a handful of the league changed stadiums into smaller stadiums in about a 10 year time span, the ball changing, change in the wood used in bats, first real introduction to free weight strength training league-wide (the first full-time strength coach wasn't hired when the Twins won their last World Series for perspective), changing strike zone, and emphasis on velocity in pitching leading to a much higher average pitch velocity across the league. There are smaller factors as well involved, but those are the biggest ones as I asked around the game.

[jmlease1]

 

I find the argument for Bonds (pre and post-1998) interesting. If we could put an asterisk on his plaque and separate out his statistics pre1998 and post-1998, I might agree. Clemens was not on his way to the HOF when he started juicing to revive his stalled career.

 

My problem with either of them being inducted, is how do you explain not putting Sosa, McGwire and Palmeiro in the HOF (and A-Rod)?

 

I also don't like the "everyone else was doing it" argument, because it justifies anyone doing anything in any era to cheat in any way (even destructive and illegal ways), so long as they aren't the only ones cheating. Pete Rose may or may not deserve to be inducted based on his gambling (which had no affect on his performance). But at least he didn't encourage a generation of young aspiring players to do something illegal and harmful to their health in order to succeed. Rose is a cautionary tale for other reasons, but at least he's not the poster boy for why you should cheat to get ahead in life. I think putting known PED users in the HOF sends a bad message - like putting Bud Selig in the HOF.

 

Have to disagree with you on where Clemens was in terms of HoF or not before he started getting chemically enhanced (which there seems to be agreement occurred in Toronto). He had already won 3 Cy Youngs and an MVP, 4 ERA titles, and had a resume littered was black ink. he'd bounced back from the injury years to throw 242 innings in his last year in Boston and lead the league in K's. Even if he'd had a standard 5-year decline leading to retirement around age 38 he'd almost certainly be in based on the 12 year Boston run through age 33. No longer in conversation about the greatest pitcher of all-time, but the resume was already there. the enhancement years put  Clemens into the conversations about inner circle stuff, edspecially because of the added mystique of dominating in his late 30's/early 40's like no one else in modern times. And now we know why. But I think it's a pretty big re-write to say he wasn't already on the path to the HoF because he started juicing.

 

I think you can add in Bonds & Clemens and still exclude guys like Sosa, McGuire, and Palmiero but I understand the concern. I'd prefer the HoF doesn't just throw up it's hands and go, "well, it was the wild wild west back then, nothing we can do, so we'll just look at the stats and move along," myself. but none of those other guys were sure things before they started cheating, either.

 

Sosa? nice player before the juicing apparently started, but nearly half of his total bWAR came in 4 years, coinciding with...peak steroid. He was cooked at age 35. Is it really that hard to exclude him?

 

McGuire? Had some big years, but never won an MVP and it's not like he got robbed. Missed a lot of time for injury (averaged 117 games a year) and it's not like he played one of the high wear & tear positions. Great rate stats, but the counting stats are less impressive. Really needs those St. Louis years to even be in the conversation and there's no question he was juicing then. If he retires at age 34-35 because of too many nagging injuries and he's barely over 400 career HRs his name never comes up.

 

Palmeiro? He's the guy who got busted AFTER the wild wild west years were over, so that certainly makes it easier to exclude, doesn't it? The lack of black type hurts him too; lead the league in hits once, doubles once, runs once. That's it. only 4 all-star appearances. you have to discount one of Gold Gloves since it was back when voting was a complete joke and he played DH most of the year. there's an argument that he was a bit of a compiler and as a guy who actually tested positive it's a lot easier to call into question his many high-performing years late in his career. Cut down those texas numbers in his 2nd stint and isn't he pretty much Will Clark? (a fine player and the epitome of the Hall of Very Good)

 

So I think you can still exclude those kind of guys. Will they? Should they? Fair questions.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Posnanski nailed it.

 

What Needham (and plenty of others) have questioned is this: Should Rivera as a closer be the first to be unanimous?

 

One answer to that question is no, of course he shouldn’t be first. As stated: Ty Cobb should have been first. Joe DiMaggio should have been first. Ted Williams … Stan Musial … Willie Mays … Henry Aaron … Jackie Robinson … Tom Seaver … Cal Ripken … Greg Maddux … Ken Griffey … all of those guys and more should have been first. But they weren’t.

 

And there’s no going back to get any of that right.

 

Rivera did his job better than anyone in baseball history. He has the best ERA+ of any pitcher in baseball history. He has the most saves, if you care about saves. He’s fifth all-time in Win Probability added — right between Warren Spahn and Tom Seaver — and his postseason pitching record is an absurdity, 141 innings, a 0.759 WHIP, a 0.70 ERA, and so on.

 

Is his Hall of Fame case as good as Maddux’s? As Seaver’s? As Johnson’s? As Martinez’s? As Gibson’s? No, not to me.

 

But maybe it’s better to think of it this way: Nobody closed out a game better. Nobody. In that way, maybe nobody is better suited to close out this ridiculous streak of the greatest players not getting elected unanimously.

 

https://theathletic.com/733813/2018/12/26/posnanski-how-the-lack-of-hall-of-fame-unanimity-became-a-thing-and-why-it-should-end-with-mariano-rivera/

[PseudoSABR]

I thought we'd see more movement on Clemens/Bonds.  I don't think they're getting in.

[sweetmusicviola16]

 

I thought we'd see more movement on Clemens/Bonds.  I don't think they're getting in.

Bonds will never get in the HOF, though he was the greatest player of his era. What he did on the field speaks for itself.

 

Martinez is now a member of the HallofGood and that's OK. Since Mussina is in Schilling should soon follow.