2022 Hall of Fame

[UMFan83]

Sums it up

 

[NonProfitCow]

Sums it up

 

Only 2 of them should be.

[Tim]

Sums it up

 

I call bs.

 

I believe Cy Young is the all-time Cy Young leader and nobody can prove otherwise.

[Derwood]

Sums it up

 

I call bs.

 

I believe Cy Young is the all-time Cy Young leader and nobody can prove otherwise.

 

He only has one Cy and one Young

[SophyQ]

Have they already started tracking ballots? I am hoping the last year on the ballot will soften enough voters to put in at least Clemens and Bonds, like they were punishing them, but I know that is very unlikely. Like I just can't give a horsefeathers about the baseball HOF when they put in guys like Harold Baines (not to mention keep outward racists like Cap Anson in there) and not Barry horsefeathering Bonds. Bonds and Clemens seem the most obvious but eventually guys like Manny, ARod should be in there.

 

I heard about some goobers that show ​ballots with Jeff Kent

[Tim]

Sums it up

 

I call bs.

 

I believe Cy Young is the all-time Cy Young leader and nobody can prove otherwise.

 

He only has one Cy and one Young

He was Cy every day of his life. How many days was Clemens Cy?

[NewUserName]

I really think Ortiz being super media friendly while Bonds and Clemons almost the opposite had a lot more to do with who gets in the HofF then any rational thought process.

[Cubswin11]

The HOF sucks and is run by a bunch of self serving, self righteous fucks. We’ve long passed the line of it being a true measure of talent (clean or not). Treat it more as a museum and history of the game, bad actors or not.

[Rex Buckingham]

The HOF sucks and is run by a bunch of self serving, self righteous horsefeathers. We’ve long passed the line of it being a true measure of talent (clean or not). Treat it more as a museum and history of the game, bad actors or not.

 

But here's the thing... Clemens and Bonds might have been gigantic horsefeathers, but they didn't even break any rules by using HGH (no MLB rule against it 'til 2011) or steroids (no rule against them til 2005) and neither one tested positive for anything at any point while playing. Even if you want to lop off their stats from 2005 til the end of their careers, Bonds still hit over 700 HRs with a BA over .300 and Clemens had well over 300 wins and 4000 Ks.

 

Gaylord Perry was an admitted cheater. Amphetamine use was everywhere during the 60s and 70s. Fergie Jenkins was once banned from baseball (overturned later) because of cocaine possession. Nobody cared about people using PEDs until they decided they did. The BBWAA is a joke.

[UMFan83]

The HOF sucks and is run by a bunch of self serving, self righteous horsefeathers. We’ve long passed the line of it being a true measure of talent (clean or not). Treat it more as a museum and history of the game, bad actors or not.

 

But here's the thing... Clemens and Bonds might have been gigantic horsefeathers, but they didn't even break any rules by using HGH (no MLB rule against it 'til 2011) or steroids (no rule against them til 2005) and neither one tested positive for anything at any point while playing. Even if you want to lop off their stats from 2005 til the end of their careers, Bonds still hit over 700 HRs with a BA over .300 and Clemens had well over 300 wins and 4000 Ks.

 

Gaylord Perry was an admitted cheater. Amphetamine use was everywhere during the 60s and 70s. Fergie Jenkins was once banned from baseball (overturned later) because of cocaine possession. Nobody cared about people using PEDs until they decided they did. The BBWAA is a joke.

 

Yeah people on twitter are also citing the "character clause" when there are proud racists, cheaters and domestic abusers in there. Just a bunch of self-righteous assholes trying to play God

[CoolHandLuke]

I don't know if this is a good reason or not, but I'd have a hard time voting for Clemens because of the whole grooming/child rape stuff.

[OleMissCub]

Hahaha

 

[UMFan83]

I don't know if this is a good reason or not, but I'd have a hard time voting for Clemens because of the whole grooming/child rape stuff.

 

Yeah I'm torn on the character thing. On one hand its hypocritical to call out the HOF for not being a true representation of the greatest players ever but then start excluding players. But at the same time, the racists and abusers make me sick. I'd lean towards keeping them in but "memorializing" them by detailing their faults on their plaque for all to see.

[Rob]

Yeah people on twitter are also citing the "character clause" when there are proud racists, cheaters and domestic abusers in there. Just a bunch of self-righteous horsefeathers trying to play God

 

And your indignation is righteous?

 

"There are already a lot of awful people in the HoF" is just the baseball equivalent of "it's always been done that way, so why do we need to change it?" It's a bad-faith argument.

 

Look at each decision in a vacuum. You're talking about bestowing the highest honor in the sport upon these people -- an honor that comes with significant monetary and influential value. Fans pay more for an autograph by a Hall of Famer. They see "MLB Hall of Fame" in a twitter bio and they respect that person's opinion more. And your argument is that because there are other awful people in the Hall, voters are "self-righteous horsefeathers trying to play God" when they hesitate to bestow more money and influence on these people? That's some nonsense if you're being honest with yourself. Ty Cobb being a racist 100 years ago is not a good reason to give money and influence to Curt Schilling today.

 

The pearl-clutching over cheating gets to me a bit too, but there are legitimate reasons to utilize the character clause when dealing with truly awful people. Clemens is accused of grooming a child (and perhaps worse). A child who later killed herself. Voters aren't being self-righteous horsefeathers trying to play God if that's the reason they're uncomfortable giving him money and fame -- they're just being decent human beings.

[UMFan83]

Yeah people on twitter are also citing the "character clause" when there are proud racists, cheaters and domestic abusers in there. Just a bunch of self-righteous horsefeathers trying to play God

 

And your indignation is righteous?

 

"There are already a lot of awful people in the HoF" is just the baseball equivalent of "it's always been done that way, so why do we need to change it?" It's a bad-faith argument.

 

Look at each decision in a vacuum. You're talking about bestowing the highest honor in the sport upon these people -- an honor that comes with significant monetary and influential value. Fans pay more for an autograph by a Hall of Famer. They see "MLB Hall of Fame" in a twitter bio and they respect that person's opinion more. And your argument is that because there are other awful people in the Hall, voters are "self-righteous horsefeathers trying to play God" when they hesitate to bestow more money and influence on these people? That's some nonsense if you're being honest with yourself. Ty Cobb being a racist 100 years ago is not a good reason to give money and influence to Curt Schilling today.

 

The pearl-clutching over cheating gets to me a bit too, but there are legitimate reasons to utilize the character clause when dealing with truly awful people. Clemens is accused of grooming a child (and perhaps worse). A child who later killed herself. Voters aren't being self-righteous horsefeathers trying to play God if that's the reason they're uncomfortable giving him money and fame -- they're just being decent human beings.

 

Are you suggesting that Roger Clemens isn't already rich and famous? I care about the HOF being a register of the greatest players of all time. If Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens (and several others) aren't in there, it has no credibility to me. Call it the Hall of Great Baseball Players Who Are Good People Except The Bad People That Are Already In Here. If you want to put the shitty people's plaques in the bathroom stalls and/or put giant disclaimers on their plaques mentioning their shittyness that's fine by me. I doubt Clemens is going to go out and try to profit from being a Hall of Famer if it says right on the plaque that he's a piece of horsefeathers. I really don't need a bunch of journalists playing God and determining who meets their standards of shittyness, especially when those standards are not applied fairly (not just the old racists, talking about the floating standards of PED users).

[Andy]

If Clemens isn't getting votes because he's (allegedly) a child rapist, that's one thing, but as I mentioned above, Omar Vizquel getting more votes than Sammy Sosa would seem to imply that actual crime doesn't matter to the voters nearly as much as steroid use does.

[UMFan83]

If Clemens isn't getting votes because he's (allegedly) a child rapist, that's one thing, but as I mentioned above, Omar Vizquel getting more votes than Sammy Sosa would seem to imply that actual crime doesn't matter to the voters nearly as much as steroid use does.

 

Here is the formula they use:

 

WAR - (20 x Number of PED implications) + cumulative rating of niceness or jerkiness to journalists - (2 x alleged crimes committed) + (10 x number of Tony LaRussa's who liked) - number of boomboxes teammates smashed.

 

The new weighted WAR is compared to the rest of the HOF to determine worthiness

[Rob]

Are you suggesting that Roger Clemens isn't already rich and famous? I care about the HOF being a register of the greatest players of all time. If Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens (and several others) aren't in there, it has no credibility to me. Call it the Hall of Great Baseball Players Who Are Good People Except The Bad People That Are Already In Here. If you want to put the horsefeathers people's plaques in the bathroom stalls and/or put giant disclaimers on their plaques mentioning their horsefeathers that's fine by me. I doubt Clemens is going to go out and try to profit from being a Hall of Famer if it says right on the plaque that he's a piece of horsefeathers. I really don't need a bunch of journalists playing God and determining who meets their standards of horsefeathers, especially when those standards are not applied fairly (not just the old racists, talking about the floating standards of PED users).

 

So because racists were in the Hall then, we should elect modern racists now. Because Roger Clemens already made a lot of money, we shouldn't feel icky about giving him more?

 

The existing circumstances are sunk costs. We can't do anything about them the same way we can't do anything about Harold Baines and Bill Mazeroski being undeserving candidates. But we aren't intentionally diluting the talent-pool by letting Magglio Ordonez and Elvis Andrus in there, along with every other comparable player. No. We evaluate each candidate on the merits. And part of that evaluation includes the character clause, and thinking about whether or not we should be rewarding these people for their behaviors.

 

Let's not kid ourselves. Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and a whole bunch of other awful people will no-doubt make it to the Hall of Fame one day. I see no reason it has to be while they're alive to profit from it. Until then, if you want a register of the greatest players of all time, check out the fangraphs career leaderboard.

[Rob]

If Clemens isn't getting votes because he's (allegedly) a child rapist, that's one thing, but as I mentioned above, Omar Vizquel getting more votes than Sammy Sosa would seem to imply that actual crime doesn't matter to the voters nearly as much as steroid use does.

 

That's a fair take and pointing out a legitimate problem with the way these character allegations are being handled by a number of voters. Of course, I never understood why he was getting the support he received before the allegations...

[UMFan83]

Are you suggesting that Roger Clemens isn't already rich and famous? I care about the HOF being a register of the greatest players of all time. If Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens (and several others) aren't in there, it has no credibility to me. Call it the Hall of Great Baseball Players Who Are Good People Except The Bad People That Are Already In Here. If you want to put the horsefeathers people's plaques in the bathroom stalls and/or put giant disclaimers on their plaques mentioning their horsefeathers that's fine by me. I doubt Clemens is going to go out and try to profit from being a Hall of Famer if it says right on the plaque that he's a piece of horsefeathers. I really don't need a bunch of journalists playing God and determining who meets their standards of horsefeathers, especially when those standards are not applied fairly (not just the old racists, talking about the floating standards of PED users).

 

So because racists were in the Hall then, we should elect modern racists now. Because Roger Clemens already made a lot of money, we shouldn't feel icky about giving him more?

 

The existing circumstances are sunk costs. We can't do anything about them the same way we can't do anything about Harold Baines and Bill Mazeroski being undeserving candidates. But we aren't intentionally diluting the talent-pool by letting Magglio Ordonez and Elvis Andrus in there, along with every other comparable player. No. We evaluate each candidate on the merits. And part of that evaluation includes the character clause, and thinking about whether or not we should be rewarding these people for their behaviors.

 

Let's not kid ourselves. Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and a whole bunch of other awful people will no-doubt make it to the Hall of Fame one day. I see no reason it has to be while they're alive to profit from it. Until then, if you want a register of the greatest players of all time, check out the fangraphs career leaderboard.

 

 

Sure we can, we can delegitimize the HOF because its not a true representation of the best players in baseball. It's a museum for players who meet whatever moving goalposts a group of journalists deem worthy. Why should we give it any relevance when they elect one player who tested positive for steroids in 2003 on the first ballot and not another one whose numbers arguably surpass the former? I'm not aware of any crimes Sosa committed. He was a jerk to teammates so now he doesn't get into the hall of fame? Santo didn't get in until he was dead despite clear HOF worthy numbers because he was mean to his opponents? It sounds like a kindergarten class taking away a toy because a kid was mean to another kid. Yes I'm moving away from the Clemens discussion because I clearly cant get you agree there, but its all part of this arbitrary system of judgment that results in a Hall of Fame that does not include several of the most prominent players in history. I don't see this level of high and mightiness in any of the other HOFs out there. Bill Laimbeer and Dennis Rodman are in the basketball HOF, there was no coordinated effort from stodgy basketball journalists keeping them out. Only baseball with its manufactured self-importance feels the need to arbitrate its museum of best players this way.

[OleMissCub]

Surely A-Rod's numbers will go way up next year, right? I've got to believe that many of the people who had no problem voting for Clemens and Bonds didn't vote for him because they wanted to ensure he wasn't a first ballot guy. I do understand that A-Rod failed two drug tests, but the "first ballot" thing surely took some voters away from A-Rod this year.

[Rob]

Sure we can, we can delegitimize the HOF because its not a true representation of the best players in baseball. It's a museum for players who meet whatever moving goalposts a group of journalists deem worthy. Why should we give it any relevance when they elect one player who tested positive for steroids in 2003 on the first ballot and not another one whose numbers arguably surpass the former? I'm not aware of any crimes Sosa committed. He was a jerk to teammates so now he doesn't get into the hall of fame? Santo didn't get in until he was dead despite clear HOF worthy numbers because he was mean to his opponents? It sounds like a kindergarten class taking away a toy because a kid was mean to another kid. Yes I'm moving away from the Clemens discussion because I clearly cant get you agree there, but its all part of this arbitrary system of judgment that results in a Hall of Fame that does not include several of the most prominent players in history. I don't see this level of high and mightiness in any of the other HOFs out there. Bill Laimbeer and Dennis Rodman are in the basketball HOF, there was no coordinated effort from stodgy basketball journalists keeping them out. Only baseball with its manufactured self-importance feels the need to arbitrate its museum of best players this way.

 

And now that you've backed off Clemens, we can begin to find some common ground.

 

I agree that if Ortiz is in, Sosa should almost certainly be in. Granted, typically I compare players to the others at their position and by that yardstick Sosa falls short on the numbers while there aren't really enough DH's to establish a bar for Ortiz to clear -- so looking at it that way, I can kinda see a statistical argument for the disparity. But it's not an argument I'm seeing from the actual voters. Their vote to hold Sosa out seems to be based on the same test which Ortiz allegedly failed. It's hypocritical and absurd. [And for the record, Sosa and McGwire, despite borderline numbers, absolutely deserve to be in based solely on the fact they basically saved baseball's popularity.]

 

The Santo thing drove me nuts, and his numbers are HoF worthy at a position which is severely underrepresented. Again, I can squint and see the statistical argument against it -- using the outdated metrics adored by HoF voters at the time, he looked more like a borderline candidate. But that usage of the character clause was clearly an overreach -- he wasn't accused of being an actual bad person. He just rubbed some NY writers the wrong way. Totally inappropriate use of the character clause.

 

I'll even extend a further olive branch by saying that trying to keep people like Tim Raines out of the Hall for cocaine usage was an inappropriate use of the character clause. They weren't hurting anybody but themselves with that.

 

The only times I've advocated for the use of the character clause are merely to postpone [not prevent] induction when people have actively hurt others (Bonds, Clemens), are encouraging others to hurt people (Schilling), or have actively undermined the integrity of the sport itself (Rose). And hell, for that last one I'm perfectly fine saying Rose has done his time and should be in. Not all postponements need to be until postmortem. I'd love to see MLB slap a set penalty on PED suspensions including not just a 60 game ban, but a 20 year ban on Hall of Fame eligibility. I think that would cut down on the pearl-clutching by the writers and give the Veterans Committee implicit permission to say "they've done their time and we shouldn't hold it against them anymore." Just a thought.

 

I can't speak to other sports -- I don't have much interest in them.

[Rob]

Surely A-Rod's numbers will go way up next year, right? I've got to believe that many of the people who had no problem voting for Clemens and Bonds didn't vote for him because they wanted to ensure he wasn't a first ballot guy. I do understand that A-Rod failed two drug tests, but the "first ballot" thing surely took some voters away from A-Rod this year.

 

Normally I think that'd be a pretty significant bounce. But he's now got to deal with the added factor that Bonds didn't get in despite his numbers and the career he put up before he started using -- which was pretty analogous to, though significantly better than, A-Rod's situation. That argument, in theory, could make it easier not to vote for him.

 

They may cancel out, more or less. But I'd guess he still sees a slight bump.

[OleMissCub]

[UMFan83]

Since its still 2022...

 

 

Also, doesnt seem like we'll see any prime steroid guys in anytime soon: