2016 HOF candidates (Griffey, Piazza voted in; post 30)

[gregmag]

There are two reasons we know the character clause is really a factor that the HOF has employed coherently in the past. One is the one people have already mentioned: there are some grade A scumbags in the Hall of Fame. But we also have to consider the opposite problem. If character really matters, where are the HOFers who only got in because of their high character? Where are the pretty good players who got over the line because they were awesome human beings? Dave Cameron was a very good player, but I always heard people talk about him as one of the finest people in the game. Fred McGriff, as a player, is about the best example you could imagine of someone whose numbers don't quite, but almost, get him in. He was supposed to be a great guy too. Where are the arguments that character should count in his favor?

 

The answer is that nobody ever makes that kind of argument, because no one would take it seriously. Character doesn't really count, unless you need an excuse to keep someone out, at which point character means whatever you need it to mean. In law we call that "standardless discretion." It's the classic characteristic of illegitimate legal systems, and it's why the steroid nonsense has cost the HOF so much legitimacy. With Pete Rose they at least tried to construct a coherent story about why he should be out. With the steroid guys they've failed to do so.

 

For me, what's deeply messed up about the idea that character matters for the HOF is that it perpetuates a myth: the myth that athletes aren't just stronger and faster than normal people, they're better. Hero worship of athletes is stupid. Pro sports have always sold the myth of the heroic athlete, but athletes aren't heroic. They're just strong and fast. They play heroes on TV, in games that have nothing to do with real life, where character is formed. We should recognize the HOF for what it is: a collection of people whose character we can generally assess as average, but who were really good at baseball.

[JimH5]

We should recognize the HOF for what it is: a collection of people whose character we can generally assess as average, but who were really good at baseball.

 

True--but if a player's baseball playing performance has been enhanced because of unlawful and unapproved drug use, then what is that player, really? We know that drug use can have positive physical results for a player. Is it right to honor A-Rod or Manny or Palmeiro for being really good at baseball when we have evidence that says they enhanced their bodies in ways that were unapproved? We know their baseball records would be less had they not enhanced themselves, right?

 

Character is difficult to measure, except when it's not. You can shrug it off, or take a stance that you're not going to judge people for their off-field actions, or whatever. . .But why would you ask the HOF to honor guys who did things forbidden in baseball?

[3and2Fastball]

Is it right to honor A-Rod or Manny or Palmeiro for being really good at baseball when we have evidence that says they enhanced their bodies in ways that were unapproved?

 

I think, if that is something you feel strongly about, keep Bud Selig out of the Hall of Fame. I know it wasn't all Selig's fault, there was CBA negotiating that influenced things etc, but my point being when Bonds did steroids it was not against the rules.

 

Personally I think of A-Rod as one of the Top 10 players of All-Time. The numbers he put up, at SS, are incredible. And whether or not he did steroids in his Seattle & Texas years and even up through his 50+ HR season in 2007 with the Yankees is, to me, irrelevant because he didn't break any rules.

 

A-Rod has put up nearly 700 HR's as a SS & 3B, he is (again to me) a slam-dunk no doubt about it 1st Ballot Hall of Famer.

 

And again I firmly believe that a majority of MLB enhanced their bodies from the mid to late 80's through to 2005/2007 or so. (A "majority" being at least 51% of all players). I think the playing field was fairly even. My "belief" towards that is similar to anyone else's very very subjective beliefs as to who did steroids and who didn't.

[DocLuna7]

I just heard a very interesting case being made for Jeff Kent on the MLB Network. Not sure I am fully on board yet but interesting nonetheless.

[FidoMcCokefiend]

Piazza and Junior only.

 

Mind boggling. Simply mind boggling.

 

Jim Edmonds gone with only 2.5% what a travesty. Him and Lofton.

Bagwell at 71.6%

Raines at 69.8%

Mussina at 43%

Martinez at 43.4%

 

David Freaking Eckstein with 2 votes.

 

[Outlander]

The ballot is diminishing though. Garciaparra, McGwire, Trammell and Piazza will be removed from last year's carry forward and the only additions were Wagner and Hoffman. Raines and Bagwell are locks at this point for 2017, Hoffman looks real good as well with a showing higher than many expected.

[FidoMcCokefiend]

Raines and Bagwell are locks at this point for 2017

 

Assuming a big 2016 season I agree.

[jerichoholicninja]

Griffey forced a trade to the team of his choosing and ended his career by sleeping in the clubhouse. Where's the integrity in that?

[DocLuna7]

Who were the three idiots that didn't vote for Ken Griffey Jr. to be a first ballot Hall of Famer?

[remfire]

but my point being when Bonds did steroids it was not against the rules.

 

I will never understand this argument. Steroids were put into the US Food and Drug Administrations Controlled Substance Act in 1990, which if I'm not mistaken, stemmed the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990. If they were illegal in the United States, how were they legal within the rules of Major League Baseball?!?

 

 

Happy for Griffey Jr as he is a no doubter. I'd love to see Raines get in next year. Ballot might remain crowded though with the new additions of Pudge, Manny, Vladdy, and Posada.

[owbc]

Jim Edmonds is the biggest snub this year...hard to believe that one of the best centerfielders of our generation is off the ballot so easily.

[AKCheesehead]

I thought Jason Kendall would get more than two votes. Sure, he didn't have the bat of Piazza, but he was no slouch. He had almost 2200 hits and that was basically all at catcher. He spent about 4,000 more innings behind the plate than did Piazza. Some Kendall career stats:

Defensive games as C: 2025 (#5 all time)

Putouts as C: 13019 (#2 all time)

Never thought he'd get close to getting in or anything, but 2 votes?

[nate82]

How did Schilling get more votes than Clemens and Bonds?

[AKCheesehead]

Who were the three idiots that didn't vote for Ken Griffey Jr. to be a first ballot Hall of Famer?

 

I think there are just some who don't vote for obvious first balloters just for whatever stupid reason. http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/First_Ballot_Hall_of_Famer Who didn't vote for Henderson? Or Johnson? Or heck, Ruth or Aaron??? Nobody's ever been unanimous. Which begs the question: If somebody didn't vote for any of these obvious hall of famers, what business do they have voting to begin with? Are they just not smart enough to fill out a ballot correctly or what?

[igor67]

Glad Piazza got in despite what one might infer from my earlier comment. I have no problem with voters deciding to keep people out based on known PED use, but I do have a problem with the slander campaigns that were passed off as evidence of his guilt. I also do not take it as a sign of inconsistency that others maybe in the HOF even though they cheated in some fashion. Some types of cheating are worse then others for a variety of reasons. For example one can't really complain about the athlete-hero myth, its a 2000+ year old feature of western civilization (and probably others for that matter). Even if one puts that aside, they are still public figures which means their actions will influence others in ways that normal private citizens won't. And ultimately not being enshrined is purely a symbolic gesture. It obviously carries some meaning, but pales in comparison to real injustices like Lise Meitner not getting a Nobel Prize for discovering fission, which far less ink is spent discussing in public.

[Patrick425]

Who were the three idiots that didn't vote for Ken Griffey Jr. to be a first ballot Hall of Famer?

 

I think there are just some who don't vote for obvious first balloters just for whatever stupid reason. http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/First_Ballot_Hall_of_Famer Who didn't vote for Henderson? Or Johnson? Or heck, Ruth or Aaron??? Nobody's ever been unanimous. Which begs the question: If somebody didn't vote for any of these obvious hall of famers, what business do they have voting to begin with? Are they just not smart enough to fill out a ballot correctly or what?

 

I think the argument for a handful of voters is that if guys like Ruth, Aaron, Johnson, etc were not unanimous first ballot HOF'ers, then no one ever should be voted in unanimously on the first ballot. Not saying that I do or do not agree with this, just saying that this is what I believe to be the thought process.

[RobertR]

Ruth I understand. No criteria had been firmly set and the number of eligible players was huge. If I asked people to name the top ten films of the last 50 years how many would be unanimous?

 

Using Ruth as an example to justify not voting for an obvious Hall of Famer is comparing apples to oranges.

[Bombers]

Griffey is an all time favorite athlete of mine. He was the best. As for the unanimous part, since voters only get 10 votes some won't "burn" the vote on someone guaranteed to get in.

[pacopete4]

Griffey is an all time favorite athlete of mine. He was the best. As for the unanimous part, since voters only get 10 votes some won't "burn" the vote on someone guaranteed to get in.

 

I think their job is to vote the most deserving and by not voting Griffey on that ballot is not doing your job correctly. Also, voting for a guy like David Eickstein should get your vote taken away in future years. Everyone can respect that man for how he played the game but give me a break.

[Outlander]

A writer last year wrote about the subject of not voting for certain guys because of the ten person limit but I can't locate it now. Their job isn't to vote for the most deserving, Griffey was an obvious choice that was going to get elected so if somebody didn't vote Griffey and voted for ten others who he believed should go in the HOF I give that writer a lot of credit.

[stoutdude04]

Maybe if they actually voted guys in that deserved to be in then it wouldn't be packed where there are more than 10 deserving(I am not saying there are more than 10, but some might feel that there is).

[Baldkin]

I cannot believe they have a 10 player limit on HoF voting.

If someone is a hall of famer, they should be able to be voted for.

Cannot believe that once again, Tim Raines got denied entry.

 

As for the "Steroids are illegal, no hall of famers" argument:

Cocaine and Methamphetamine were illegal in the USA. Many players used them to help get up for games. Should we remove them from the Hall of Fame?

[Invader3K]

Glad for the two that got in. I also personally wish Jeff Kent and Lee Smith did better in the voting...I feel they both should be in, though I know they probably won't.

[Invader3K]

 

As for the "Steroids are illegal, no hall of famers" argument:

Cocaine and Methamphetamine were illegal in the USA. Many players used them to help get up for games. Should we remove them from the Hall of Fame?

 

I think you mean "amphetamines." I've never heard of meth being widely used by MLB players, at least as a performance enhancer.

 

Amphetamines were actually legal in the US, up until (I believe), the late 1970s. Basically like taking a mega-dose of caffeine.

[Jenkins5]

Hard to believe Griffey Jr is only #1 pick to be elected to Hall of Fame. Obviously, Chipper will be a 1st ballot guy to join him. Of course ARod has an uphill climb now but he could join as well. ARod & Bonds are a shame. They never needed to take anything to be elite Hall of Fame players...they just got creedy. Didn't want to be one of the greatest but the greatest....

 

I don't like the current system. PEDs issue drives me nuts. Baseball created that issues & culture to begin with....not to mention that culture saved baseball. The writers loved the era & it's players. MLB & writers create the issue, turn back to the issue, and then when things went south, they left the players out dry, dragged there names though the mud, played innoscent, and turned back on them. Now they sit on there high horse & deny players who should be in.

 

Piazza....not bad for a guy only drafted in 62nd round of draft as family friend favor....