2013 Baseball Hall of Fame

[Gary]

January 9th is the day we find out who gets in. Will we see Tim Raines, Jack Morris, Craig Biggio, Dale Murphy or Alan Trammell get in? Will any of the PED players have a chance?

Who would you like to see get in?

[ninersdd]

Would you be fine with a certain fellow Sun Devil making it?

[ElwoodCuse]

It's going to be awesome when a mediocre pitcher gets in and one of the three best players of all time doesn't so the writers can serve their childish, illogical, and just plain wrong agendas about advanced statistics and the effect PEDs has on playing ability

Also that Game 7 really wasn't that great

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15836

Although I guess someday I can use Jack Morris to say Barry Zito should be the HOF. At least he has a Cy Young XD

[The_Admiral]

Alan Trammell should be a Hall of Famer. I don't understand how he isn't.

[ElwoodCuse]

Alan Trammell should be a Hall of Famer. I don't understand how he isn't.

You can make much better arguments for him than Jack Morris, that's for sure.

[The_Admiral]

Jack Morris is a guy you think should be in until you give his numbers any sort of scrutiny, at which point you realize no, probably not.

[ElwoodCuse]

Jack Morris is a guy you think should be in until you give his numbers any sort of scrutiny

The problem is that a lot of voters refuse to do exactly this, because they "know what their gut tells them" at best and at worst are outwardly hostile to analysis proving them wrong.

I wish I had a dollar for every hack baseball writer who used some variation of "parents' basement" in response to the sabrmetrics crowd that shows they are full of crap. Oh, and "WAR? What is it good for? Ha!"

[The_Admiral]

But WAR is a bad metric. Everyone has a different proprietary formula, and it relies on an imaginary "replacement player." I don't believe in using imaginary players.

[mania]

Baseball Think Factory has been tallying public votes, and don't believe anyone from this class will be voted in.

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/discussion/the_2012_hall_of_fame_ballot_collecting_gizmo

[McCall]

I'd probably at least vote in Biggio. I honestly believe Bagwell should be in as there as never been, or at least none that I've seen, any evidence that he himself used PEDs. It's simply based on when he played. Many people say how can you punish those who have been thought to use while not punishing those who got away with it. How I would handle the PED factor is any player that there has been evidence or at least vastly legitimate (not just someone saying they did, but some sort of evidence) accusations of use would not be in. Bagwell has never been accused, he was not in the Mitchell report. If someone used but was never accused or there is no evidence, then congrats, they got away with it. But to prevent someone who has no history of being accused or anything, and conversely, allowing in someone who there is evidence they used, makes no sense to me.

Basic breakdown

Bagwell - nothing on him whatsoever as far as PEDs. Should be in.

Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, Clemens - Hard evidence, confessions or at least enough evidence to raise legitimate suspicion. Should not be in.

[Raysfan12]

I'll take the Astros duo of Bagwell and Biggio in the Hall of Fame for 2013.

[ElwoodCuse]

How I would handle the PED factor is any player that there has been evidence or at least vastly legitimate (not just someone saying they did, but some sort of evidence) accusations of use would not be in.

Why start now? A drug cheat from the 1880s is in the Hall of Fame. Decades worth of players who did greenies are in the Hall of Fame. Gaylord Perry is in the Hall of Fame.

[cmm]

I'd probably at least vote in Biggio. I honestly believe Bagwell should be in as there as never been, or at least none that I've seen, any evidence that he himself used PEDs. It's simply based on when he played. Many people say how can you punish those who have been thought to use while not punishing those who got away with it. How I would handle the PED factor is any player that there has been evidence or at least vastly legitimate (not just someone saying they did, but some sort of evidence) accusations of use would not be in. Bagwell has never been accused, he was not in the Mitchell report. If someone used but was never accused or there is no evidence, then congrats, they got away with it. But to prevent someone who has no history of being accused or anything, and conversely, allowing in someone who there is evidence they used, makes no sense to me.

Basic breakdown

Bagwell - nothing on him whatsoever as far as PEDs. Should be in.

Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, Clemens - Hard evidence, confessions or at least enough evidence to raise legitimate suspicion. Should not be in.

A problem with this way of thinking is that it penalizes players for coming clean. For years fans and the media have been asking players to be honest about use to shed light on the steroids era. There have been whispers about guys like Bagwell and Piazza but no hard evidence. If those who admit to use are automatically banned from the Hall of Fame, why would those guys ever consider coming clean (assuming they have something to come clean about)?

I think that MLB should provide guidance and say either it's cool to let the pre-testing PED users in the Hall of Fame, or it isn't cool. I'd go with letting them in since admitted amphetamine user Hank Aaron and accused amphetamine user Willie Mays among others are already in.

[McCall]

I'd probably at least vote in Biggio. I honestly believe Bagwell should be in as there as never been, or at least none that I've seen, any evidence that he himself used PEDs. It's simply based on when he played. Many people say how can you punish those who have been thought to use while not punishing those who got away with it. How I would handle the PED factor is any player that there has been evidence or at least vastly legitimate (not just someone saying they did, but some sort of evidence) accusations of use would not be in. Bagwell has never been accused, he was not in the Mitchell report. If someone used but was never accused or there is no evidence, then congrats, they got away with it. But to prevent someone who has no history of being accused or anything, and conversely, allowing in someone who there is evidence they used, makes no sense to me.

Basic breakdown

Bagwell - nothing on him whatsoever as far as PEDs. Should be in.

Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, Clemens - Hard evidence, confessions or at least enough evidence to raise legitimate suspicion. Should not be in.

A problem with this way of thinking is that it penalizes players for coming clean. For years fans and the media have been asking players to be honest about use to shed light on the steroids era. There have been whispers about guys like Bagwell and Piazza but no hard evidence. If those who admit to use are automatically banned from the Hall of Fame, why would those guys ever consider coming clean (assuming they have something to come clean about)?

I think that MLB should provide guidance and say either it's cool to let the pre-testing PED users in the Hall of Fame, or it isn't cool. I'd go with letting them in since admitted amphetamine user Hank Aaron and accused amphetamine user Willie Mays among others are already in.

It's not punishing them for coming clean, it's punishing them for using PEDs.

[Kramerica Industries]

But, again, PED's have been around ever since MLB was formed. It's just a matter of what kind of PED's were being used.

And, so, basically, there are two ways to go about this:

1) Allow those who have been caught to still have eligibility, and let their resume's be judged from there.

2) Remove admitted cheaters from the Hall of Fame who are already in.

I think the logical choice here is obvious. You can't just have 600-700 HR hitters not be in the Hall. Even without PED's, many of these guys were so naturally gifted that they probably get there anyway.

[McCall]

Yeah but due to PED use, there's no way of knowing that for sure. What you do know for sure is that they used them. As far as past users, if there's no way of knowing who did and who didn't, then I guess they got away with it. Pete Rose is being kept out for nothing that had to do with his on-field performance. He didn't cheat. Why is that ok but not to keep out those who did cheat? I'm not saying base everything on assumption, but rather use evidence that shows whether someone did or didn't. IMO, there's enough to keep out Bonds, McGwire (and I was for him until his confession), Sosa and Clemens for sure. Piazza, still not completely sure one way or the other. Bagwell, have not seen anything other than "the era he played in", so I feel he should be in.

[pmoehrin]

But, again, PED's have been around ever since MLB was formed. It's just a matter of what kind of PED's were being used.

And, so, basically, there are two ways to go about this:

1) Allow those who have been caught to still have eligibility, and let their resume's be judged from there.

2) Remove admitted cheaters from the Hall of Fame who are already in.

I think the logical choice here is obvious. You can't just have 600-700 HR hitters not be in the Hall. Even without PED's, many of these guys were so naturally gifted that they probably get there anyway.

That's pretty much my view as well, but you have alot of writers that have decided to become moral crusaders and its probably going to be awhile before guys like Bonds and Clemens get in.

Keep in mind though that alot of these writers are the same people that were turning a blind eye to this stuff when it was going on and in some cases attacking guys like Steve Wilstein for even bringing the subject up. That's my main issue with the stance many writers have taken. Its very hard for me to accept my morality trumps yours type arguments from people who had the power to change things and decided to turn a blind eye to it because it was what benefited them the most at the time.

[The_Admiral]

Objectively speaking, what Rose did is probably worse than what McGwire and Sosa did. Both are bad, but gambling on the outcome of a game you control is a much bigger threat to competitive integrity than maybe being able to hit a ball harder.

[pmoehrin]

Objectively speaking, what Rose did is probably worse than what McGwire and Sosa did. Both are bad, but gambling on the outcome of a game you control is a much bigger threat to competitive integrity than maybe being able to hit a ball harder.

The other thing with Rose is that he could not have handled the situation any worse then how he handled it.

Had he shown even the slightest bit of modesty and humility, no question he would be in the Hall right now and probably would have even be back in the majors in some role. Instead he was tried to make Bart Giamatti and anyone else involved in the case out to be idiots. I don't care what kind of evidence you have on me, I didn't do it. That was his stance for over a decade. How could baseball not come down hard on him? He left them with no other choice.

As far as Pete Rose getting in the Hall of Fame at this point I really don't care. Regardless of what ultimately happens its not going to change my opinion of him one way or the other. I think once you stop looking at the Hall of Fame as the be all end all measure of greatness, whether or not Rose gets in doesn't matter as much and that's where my mindset has gone towards in recent years.

[Epiphanic]

Objectively speaking, what Rose did is probably worse than what McGwire and Sosa did. Both are bad, but gambling on the outcome of a game you control is a much bigger threat to competitive integrity than maybe being able to hit a ball harder.

This is true, but if you view gambling on baseball, steroids, amphetamines, spitballs, etc. all as cheating it becomes a question of degree of cheating is "acceptable" for inclusion to the Hall. Even if you can put the ways baseball players cheat on an objective spectrum, where do you draw the line to what is mostly acceptable and what is not?