2019 Baseball Hall of Fame ballot

[JimH5]

This year's ballot is loaded with candidates for the HOF. There are 35 guys on there, and I count nearly 20 with arguable cases. Some of those guys have PED histories, and may not get to 75 percent, but I think the effort to keep them out is softening, with some doubt over some of the guys elected in recent years, plus Bud Selig's election.

 

In any case, here's the list:

 

Rick Ankiel

Jason Bay

Lance Berkman

Barry Bonds

Roger Clemens

Freddy Garcia

Jon Garland

Travis Hafner

Roy Halladay

Todd Helton

Andruw Jones

Jeff Kent

Ted Lilly

Derek Lowe

Edgar Martinez

Fred McGriff

Mike Mussina

Darren Oliver

Roy Oswalt

Andy Pettitte

Juan Pierre

Placido Polanco

Manny Ramirez

Mariano Rivera

Scott Rolen

Curt Schilling

Gary Sheffield

Sammy Sosa

Miguel Tejada

Omar Vizquel

Billy Wagner

Larry Walker

Vernon Wells

Kevin Youlilis

Michael Young

 

My own ballot would be:

 

Mariano Rivera

Roy Halladay

Mike Mussina

Curt Schilling

Billy Wagner

Edgar Martinez

Fred McGriff

Larry Walker

Jeff Kent

Omar Vizquel

 

I'm still steering clear of the PED guys for now, though it seems like Clemens and Bonds will get there eventually. I don't think Manny, Sheffield or Sosa will. I would vote for Pettitte if it weren't for his PED history.

 

I think Rolen, Andruw Jones, Helton and Berkman fall a little short for me.

 

Have at it...

[LouisEly]

I loved Larry Walker as a player - he was one of my favorites - but he spent so much time in Colorado, and his career splits show that it buoyed his numbers:

 

Home: .348/,431/.637

Away: .278/.370/.495

 

I do wonder what could have been if he hadn't has as many injuries - only once in his career did he play more than 150 games in a season. His 1997-1999 seasons were pretty incredible. His peak seasons were age 27-34, exactly what they should have been, so it seems like he was clean of PEDs. Maybe that helps him.

 

Edgar Martinez, however... 60% of his games as a DH, peak seasons age 32-38, highest HR total at age 37. I can't get behind him.

[Outlander]

Rivera, Halladay and Martinez are locks this years, all deserving in my opinion. Mussina has a chance as well but always does more poorly with anonymous voters (66% public vs. 47% anonymous) for whatever reason. It appears Walker is picking up a lot of votes this year as well, not enough to get elected this year but a shot next year on his final ballot.

[sveumrules]

Bonds, Clemens, Edgar, Halladay, Manny, Mariano, Mussina, Schilling, Walker & Wagner get my ten imaginary votes.

[3and2Fastball]

Bonds

Clemens

Rivera

L. Walker

E. Martinez

B. Wagner

[TURBO]

I will hurl my guts out the day Barry Bonds gets in. I don't think I have ever hated a MLB player as much as I hate that guy. (Alomar is a close 2nd)

[JosephC]

I'd only be voting for:

 

Mike Mussina

Mariano Rivera

Curt Schilling

[SRB]

The BBWAA hacks have destroyed the integrity of the institution, so I would only vote for Barry Bonds because the standard has now been set where nobody else should get in after fewer years than however many it takes for him to get in (unless Babe Ruth or Ted Williams needed to be voted in again for some reason...)

[dlk9s]

I want Schilling to get in just for the potential train wreck of an induction speech.

[JimH5]

The BBWAA hacks have destroyed the integrity of the institution, so I would only vote for Barry Bonds because the standard has now been set where nobody else should get in after fewer years than however many it takes for him to get in (unless Babe Ruth or Ted Williams needed to be voted in again for some reason...)

 

Most of the controversial selections have been made by special committees, outside of the BBWAA. Have the writers elected or denied someone you think was treated wrongly?

[SRB]

The BBWAA hacks have destroyed the integrity of the institution, so I would only vote for Barry Bonds because the standard has now been set where nobody else should get in after fewer years than however many it takes for him to get in (unless Babe Ruth or Ted Williams needed to be voted in again for some reason...)

 

Most of the controversial selections have been made by special committees, outside of the BBWAA. Have the writers elected or denied someone you think was treated wrongly?

 

Yes, the fact that Barry Bonds is not in the "Hall of Fame" is an absolute joke. If Bonds is not in the hall then nobody else belongs in the hall except maybe Ruth or Williams or a handful of others.

[JimH5]

The BBWAA hacks have destroyed the integrity of the institution, so I would only vote for Barry Bonds because the standard has now been set where nobody else should get in after fewer years than however many it takes for him to get in (unless Babe Ruth or Ted Williams needed to be voted in again for some reason...)

 

Most of the controversial selections have been made by special committees, outside of the BBWAA. Have the writers elected or denied someone you think was treated wrongly?

 

Yes, the fact that Barry Bonds is not in the "Hall of Fame" is an absolute joke. If Bonds is not in the hall then nobody else belongs in the hall except maybe Ruth or Williams or a handful of others.

 

His statistical achievements were accomplished with the aid of illegal drugs. That causes some writers to withhold their vote for him, per their interpretation of the election rules. Isn't that a reasonable explanation for why he hasn't been elected?

[Ennder]

There is not any election rule that prohibits someone who used steroids from being in the hall, it is people abusing language to fit their needs stopping him from being in. But simply put, the election of Baines and Morris pretty much make the entire process a joke and makes me not care a lick about who wins. I will not visit the HOF until they change something because it is completely broken at this point.

[CheeseheadInQC]

I've often kind of wondered if the Yankee factor works against Mussina by overshadowing the rest of his career. Because it is the Yankees, people seem to forget how good he was for a decade in Baltimore before he went to New York. He should definitely be in, in my opinion.

[JimH5]

There is not any election rule that prohibits someone who used steroids from being in the hall, it is people abusing language to fit their needs stopping him from being in. But simply put, the election of Baines and Morris pretty much make the entire process a joke and makes me not care a lick about who wins. I will not visit the HOF until they change something because it is completely broken at this point.

 

It's not abusing language. It's interpreting language.

 

From the HOF:

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.

 

That leaves it up to individual writers' discretion. They get to decide how much they want to weigh those criteria against each other.

[sveumrules]

His statistical achievements were accomplished with the aid of illegal drugs. That causes some writers to withhold their vote for him, per their interpretation of the election rules. Isn't that a reasonable explanation for why he hasn't been elected?

 

Bud Selig presided over the "Steroid Era" & he got a plaque. Hall of Fame managers like Torre & LaRussa benefitted from juiced players & played dumb about it. There are a number of players already enshrined who used illegal drugs to enhance their performance. Worst of all there are also HOFers who propagated the "Gentleman's Agreement".

 

If I were a BBWAA member with an HOF vote, all of the above would lead me to the conclusion it is unreasonable to withhold a vote for Bonds or Clemens.

[OnTheBlack]

I will hurl my guts out the day Barry Bonds gets in. I don't think I have ever hated a MLB player as much as I hate that guy. (Alomar is a close 2nd)

 

 

Yeah, but it's not about liking the guy. Barry Bonds was not just a great player, a historically great player well before the PED's(which I think we can pinpoint pretty clearly). If Mike Trout continues to dominate for another 7-8 years, even if you find out he's the real version of what people THINK Ty Cobb is, would you say he's not a HOF'er?

 

And then how he dominated? It just showed how much greater he was than everyone else.

 

 

This isn't supposed to be a personality contest. Bonds wasn't a criminal...he was just a historically great player who saw the attention lesser players were getting by going on PED's and his ego was too big to stay clean and let them out-perform him.

 

Same with Clemens. These guys had HOF careers before the PED's(though it's far tougher to identify when Clemens started them....unless there is something I don't know).

 

As for Alomar, don't get the Alomar disdain unless it's just the spitting in the ump's face. Not that it's insignificant, but measure it against an entire career. Name me a better 2nd basemen in the last 100 years aside from Morgan and Hornsby. Not being facetious, I honestly can't think of one.

[OnTheBlack]

 

His statistical achievements were accomplished with the aid of illegal drugs. That causes some writers to withhold their vote for him, per their interpretation of the election rules. Isn't that a reasonable explanation for why he hasn't been elected?

 

 

Some of them were. But he put up an absolute iron clad, 1st ballot, HOF career before the PED's. Like I said, he was basically Mike Trout if Trout continues to be a dominant player until he's 34 before he started the PED's. Then he was a joke.....a video game-esque type player playing AGAINST a league that was full of people abusing PED's.

 

One of my least favorite players...but undeniably a HOF'er.

[JimH5]

Yeah, but it's not about liking the guy. Barry Bonds was not just a great player, a historically great player well before the PED's(which I think we can pinpoint pretty clearly). If Mike Trout continues to dominate for another 7-8 years, even if you find out he's the real version of what people THINK Ty Cobb is, would you say he's not a HOF'er?

 

I think there are lots of things that a historically great player could do that would make me withhold my hypothetical vote.

 

If someone had a history of fighting with teammates, opponents, umpires, fans, spouses, etc.

 

If they had episodes of demonstrably not trying to make plays.

 

If they committed serious off field crimes.

 

Think about all the crappy behavior we've seen from athletes over the years...Albert Belle, Lenny Dykstra, Denny McLain, Kobe Bryant, Michael Vick, Dave Kingman, John Rocker, Ray Rice.

 

There are lots of things that a great player can do that would make it reasonable and understandable for a voting body to not want to give them the highest honor.

 

When they put someone in the Hall of Fame, it's not just hanging their plaque. They get welcomed into the club. They get time on the stage with other Hall of Famers. They get to speak to the crowd and cameras behind a podium with the HOF emblem. They get the full endorsement of the organization.

 

Having said all that, it makes me rethink my vote for Curt Schilling at the top of this thread. And I agree that Bonds appeared to be a Hall of Fame player before 1999. But he spent 9 more years in the game, and was at the center of a huge PED scandal, with evidence and testimony that he used a regimen of illegal drugs to help make him better at baseball.

 

To demand that writers ignore that part of his career and only remember the good parts seems unreasonable.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I've stopped playing this hypothetical game because of the arguments presented here. Harold Baines is in. Barry Bonds is not. Gaylord Perry is in. Rodger Clemens is not. There are cheaters who are in. There are cheaters who are not. There are mediocre players who are in. There are absolute all-time great players who are not. There's a commissioner who knowingly presided over a Time in baseball when probably at least one-third of the players were juicing, if not more and the players who made his game so popular are not in, but he is. As others have stated to Tony larussa is in.

 

The Baseball Hall of Fame is irretrievably broken

[jerichoholicninja]

Read Bill James book on the hall of fame. From the beginning it's been about politics and changing the rules so that the voters' buddies can get in and guys they don't like can't. Really, it's always been a joke.

[xisxisxis]

HOF voting is a popularity contest and as such is open to huge biases back and forth. Pick any award and you have plenty of undeserving winners and deserving losers. I couldn't care less who is in the HOF as I never intend on going to visit. Just like I never went to any oscar related sites when I lived in LA... Would anyone go to a party thrown by the "cool kids" from high school if you had to pay $20 to get in the door (not for charity)? I wouldn't if it was free.

 

The great thing about advanced metrics and correction for age/era is that I can see who were the greatest players at any time by visiting bbRef and Fangraphs (BBpro too when they are free). I don't need to worry about a popularity contest by a bunch of writers who want to be part of the "cool" group...

 

I'm certainly not going to make the voting into a morality play as it was never intended to be...

 

As far as Bonds, Clemens, etc. I basically discount their performance given what information I have. The 10+ WAR seasons he put together aged 37-40 are clearly an anomaly, while his performance of ~ 7 WAR after that is likely steroid driven. I would take 32-34 WAR away from Bonds. That puts him at roughly 130 WAR for his career. That is still clearly a HOF career. He is still top 10 all time positional player and that I can live with.

 

Mike Trout is 99th on the all-time list of positional players going into his age 27 season, barring a career ending injury or uncharacteristic decline he could challenge for top ten if not top of the list. There's a special player both on the field and off the field. Or should I wait for the BBWAA to validate that opinion?

[pacopete4]

I've stopped playing this hypothetical game because of the arguments presented here. Harold Baines is in. Barry Bonds is not. Gaylord Perry is in. Rodger Clemens is not. There are cheaters who are in. There are cheaters who are not. There are mediocre players who are in. There are absolute all-time great players who are not. There's a commissioner who knowingly presided over a Time in baseball when probably at least one-third of the players were juicing, if not more and the players who made his game so popular are not in, but he is. As others have stated to Tony larussa is in.

 

The Baseball Hall of Fame is irretrievably broken

 

This post could not have been better. It’s where I am with it also.

[Invader3K]

Just let all the statistically great players in and be done wirh it. I'm tired of the idea the Hall is supposed to be the arbiter of our national morality. Plenty of unsavory types are in already. There's no reason for a guy who holds the all time home run record to not be in, among others.

[coolhandluke121]

Just start a new hall of fame based more on analytics. It's freakin' hilarious how many people most fans have never heard of are in (umpires, union reps, Marge Schott's stupid dog probably), not to mention all the obvious issues that have already been mentioned here. Seriously, I have no intention of ever visiting the analytics hall of fame, but I might check out something that actually does a credible job of breaking down player value.

 

It would be another nail in the coffin if a closer of all people is the first unanimous entry ever.