2018 Hall of Fame vote debate

I'll stray away from the steroid debate, as I think at this point everyone has their opinion on it set in stone. But Omar Vizquel being ~20% higher than Scott Rolen is weird to me. It seems like they're giving credit to Vizquel for defense and not doing the same for Rolen. I get that elite defense up the middle is more important, but Rolen played an elite third base AND could mash. In terms of career WAR (70.0), 7 yr-peak (43.5), and JAWS (56.8) he would be an above average HoF 3B.

Perhaps they're giving extra credit to Vizquel for longevity, but I'm not sure how much extra credit being a replacement level player for 6 years should garner. He put up 9 years with less than 1 WAR compared to Rolen's 2. I'm not trying to diminish Vizquel's career here, he might still be on my ballot. He just stuck out as a comparable to Rolen due to his defense.

(Also, perhaps it would be fun to set up a poll to figure out who the Sox Prospects Forum would elect?)

This Thread isn't just about the steroid topic there's a lot more to the Hall of Fame vote this year than just steroids. Edgar Martinez should he make it in because he just was a DH.The the point you bring up about Scott Rolen and Omar Vizquel and the difference in voting between these two players. I look at Claire's at how many homeruns they hit RBIs batting average OBP and duration in the leagues is a big factor for me. I'm not a big sabermetrics guy but I see how it fits into the game but did it fit in during their era.
Your suggesting at starting a poll is an excellent idea and I'm looking into how to start a poll right now.

I have 11 spots and I understand if I were a writer I could only vote for 10. Here are my 11. IMO the 1st 6 should no doubt get in now or eventually. The last 3 are interchangeable if I were to vote for 10. One would have to be left off and I'd vote for them the next year.

Chipper, Thome, Vlad, McGriff, Schilling, Mussina,
Bonds, Clemens,
Walker, Kent, Edgar.

Yeah I'd take Bonds and Clemens. They were studs before they got stupid. I understand not putting them in. I would though.

Why should Manny be in the Hall of Fame without question? He was caught using PEDs in two drug tests AFTER the testing became mandatory.

Bonds and Clemens were two of the best EVER with help from their PEDS. Let's not pretend it didn't prolong their careers and make their numbers in their late 30s and 40s look ridiculous.

You can argue that Bonds and Clemens were HOFer before turning to PEDs - which they were, but that brings up a different argument. The question of the morality of cheating.

A lot of ballplayers cheated and derived benefits which was unfair to those who didn't cheat. Why should the cheaters be rewarded?

And then that brings up the slippery slope of proving who cheated.

All are valid arguments but it is unfair to pretend that the players that were known PEDs users didn't derive considerable benefit.

Give Fred McGriff those PEDs and his numbers might look like Palmeiro's. As it was without the PEDs, McGriff's numbers were not that different than Eddie Murray's.

And that brings up a different argument - what constitutes a HOFer?

Some are strict, almost to the point of being ridiculous - I like Joe Posnanski's article in which everybody was held to Willie Mays' standards and the article wound up with the HOF being a group of 1 held in his desk drawer.

You could use that old obscenity line, as in I can't explain it, but I know what it is if I see/hear it - as in if I have to question if they're a HOFer than they're not.

Others, like myself, prefer a bigger HOF, not that I'd like to see it watered down, but I don't want it that difficult that practically nobody gets in and all you can do is insult players that they weren't perceived good enough. For example, I really have no idea why Luis Tiant and Dwight Evans aren't HOFers but Jim Rice and Catfish Hunter are.

Going back to McGriff, he might not be a Willie Mays no doubt about it HOFer, but I think he was impactful enough and very comparable enough to the Willie McCoveys and Eddie Murrays that are the 1b standard, I'd elect him - even if he's not Lou Gehrig or Jimmie Foxx.

As I've always said to the people who don't give a damn about steroids, do you care that kids with aspirations to make the major leagues then believe that they have to do steroids to make it?

I think it's pretty nuts that Mussina isn't a lock. 82.2 fWAR and 82.7 bWAR for his career. The average pitcher in the Hall of Fame had 70 bWAR for his career. If Jack Morris and Catfish Hunter made it, Mussina should have 100% of the vote.  Schilling is in the same boat, but I get that people hate him for his opinions and the inability to keep his mouth shut.

Those players knew they were doing something they shouldn't have been doing. Players were "hiding it" because they knew it was not an acceptable thing to do. Other players considered it cheating and didn't do it.

I was watching MLB network on the topic - and I'll be honest about it - I really, really hate the PEDs topic.

Bill James was talking about how if they don't have rules about it, what's the issue?

Then I listen to guys like Ron Darling and Mike Lowell talk about it and they were adamant - it's cheating. Guys who took it knew they were getting an unfair advantage.

Feeling like it's the first day of spring during the dog days of August is a huge advantage. Can't pretend like it's not.

It's obvious the impact steroids had on Clemens and Bonds. I doubt Clemens does much beyond "the twilight of his career" if he hadn't started using and if I had to venture a reasonable guess he probably started using around the 2nd half of 1996 when free agency was beckoning and he was trying to recover from an injury that had caused him to be so-so from 1993 - first half of 1996 (to be fair Clemens pitched well in 1994).

So Clemens' career from 2nd half '96 - '07 probably doesn't happen without his helper.

And with Bonds his numbers took off in '99, probably in response to the attention McGwire and Sosa got for their phony HR chase, which is part of the issue. A cheats so B feels he was already a better player if not for A cheating so B cheats and creates records that are superhuman and player C who might have been as good as player B (we'll call that guy Griffey) ages like a normal player instead of being the monster that player B becomes.

That's not good for the game. Yes Clemens and Bonds were definite HOFers before all this, but the cheating aspect is troublesome.

Likewise same thing with Pete Rose being involved in gambling, betting on baseball. Rose was obviously guilty. I'm not as convinced with Shoeless Joe Jackson however. He might have gotten a raw deal.

What I was trying to say was that there is some doubt that Shoeless Joe actually threw any games in the 1919 World Series. I'm not certain he's actually guilty.

We don't know that I-Rod, Bagwell, or Piazza used. We can suspect but there's no smoking gun or testimony to them having used so you can't vote on suspicion. You can only go by what you know.

In a totally hypothetical situation where I'm starting a franchise, I take Hoffman before Vizquel or Wagner. I do think Hoffman's value suffered from because he got used in the *PROVEN CLOSER* style when he had the type of profile that could've been used for multiple innings. Unlike, say, Wagner, I think Hoffman is a stud at 100-120 innings a year as well.

But, I'm not going to put him in the Hall of Fame based on how I think he would've done had he been used better.

Also, over the years I've become really on board with pitchers who had short-yet-dominant peaks. I'd vote for Johan Santana, Dwight Gooden, and maybe Jose Fernandez. Pitchers are under-represented in the Hall, and I'd lean toward guys who were absurdly dominant for a short time rather than Andy Pettitte/Jamie Moyer types who posted more career value due to their durability.

I feel like most people who aren't voting for Manny Ramirez and Sammy Sosa are doing so for an entirely different reason than why I (probably) wouldn't vote for Ramirez and Sosa.

I don't think it's convenience. It's undeniable proof. It's a failed test (in Manny's case) and clear cut evidence (in Arods case) that they were suspended within the game of baseball.

Whether they were a HOF before or after is irrelevant. They don't belong, they got caught.

Manny or Arod was one of the more talented hitters I will ever see, but they shouldn't be in imo.

How exactly can the Hall of Fame override the voters to make the steroid guys get in? Voting is so subjective. They either have to have a computer decide or live with how the writers vote.  As of now, the steroid guys are on the ballot and that's all the Hall of Fame can do.