3 comments Roundup of Crazy Hall of Fame Voting From Baseball Hall of Fame Voters

I guess I shouldn't call it "crazy" since everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just be consistent and don't have a stupid opinion, that's all that I ask. I usually do a few posts about Hall of Fame voting and may end up doing a few more before it's all said and done, but felt the need to try my best to condense the crazy voting into as few posts as possible. I will probably fail in doing so. As always, Jon Heyman will probably deserve his very own post. He seems like a nice guy in real life, but his ballot is always very vexing to me. He's a shill for Scott Boras and tends to use bad reasoning for his Hall of Fame selections.

So I will start first with Dan Shaughnessy's Hall of Fame ballot. Dan is the type of Hall of Fame voter who won't vote for players accused or suspected (by him) of using PED's. If I'm going to be nice, I will say it is refreshing that at least he just states he won't vote for these players because he thinks they used PED's rather than pussy foot around the matter as if there is some new information he's waiting to see revealed. It's interesting who he thinks the steroid taint (giggles) has touched and who it hasn't.

Wednesday my ballot will be mailed with boxes checked next to the names of Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, John Smoltz, Curt Schilling, Tim Raines, and Alan Trammell.

Six votes. I think it’s a personal high.

A personal high for me would be if Dan Shaughnessy didn't get the opportunity to troll his readers anymore.

This means I am not voting for (among others on the ballot), Craig Biggio, Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff, Mike Mussina, Larry Walker, Lee Smith, Carlos Delgado, and Nomar Garciaparra. Oh, and I also am not voting for Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, Gary Sheffield, Mike Piazza, and Jeff Bagwell.

I'm going to try and keep my blood pressure down about Bagwell being thrown in with Clemens, Sosa, Bonds and McGwire. Let's just say I think that's extremely uncalled for and overly-presumptive.

Yikes. Imagine going into a seven-game series with a roster of the guys I’m not voting for: Piazza behind the plate. An infield of McGwire, Biggio, Nomar, and Bagwell. An outfield of Bonds, Sosa, and Sheffield. Edgar at DH. Clemens on the mound. Lee Smith in the bullpen. Mussina ready to pitch Game 2. Who wouldn’t take their chances with that team against any team?

It's almost like these are some of the best players in the history of baseball and if there were an honor these players should receive for being the best players in baseball then they could perhaps receive that honor.

So let it rip. Bring on the hate. Bring on the humiliation. Bring on the blogboy outrage. Bring on the analytic arrogance. Bring on the PED Hall Pass. It’s a tradition like no other.

Dan needs to be hated. It allows him to get pageviews by writing columns that troll his readers and further irritate them. Hey, it beats actually taking the time to write a good column.

So don’t expect Pedro to be unanimous. His win total of 219 (accompanied by a mere 100 losses) will put off some voters, but Pedro (three Cy Young awards) should come in well north of 90 percent. Johnson is a 300-game winner (always Hall-worthy, unless you cheated),

How does Dan know that Randy Johnson didn't cheat? Because he was skinny? He was also 6'10". Writers love to talk about hitters who still hit well later in their careers being PED users, how about Johnson having 300+ strikeouts each season from the age of 35-38? That's 1999-2002, right in the middle of the Steroid Era. He has 290 strikeouts at the age of 40, but in 2003 he started to struggle a little bit more and his strikeouts per 9 innings dipped, as did his ERA rise. If Randy Johnson were Mike Piazza then the steroid stigma would be all over him, but he was skinny, so he definitely didn't use steroids. Right? Even though his career decline was at the same time baseball started testing for steroids. Of course, his decline could also be due to his age, but if that's not good enough reasoning for Mike Piazza's decline then why is it good enough to explain Randy Johnson's decline?

Biggio missed by only two votes last year. He has 3,000 hits, four gold gloves, and almost 300 homers. I would put him in the Hall of Very Good (only one 200-hit season),

Raines was a rare combination of power (170 homers) and speed (808 steals). He had six 100-run seasons. Trammell is going to be off the ballot soon, and won’t make the Hall with the BBWAA, but there’s lots of value in a shortstop who hit .300 seven times, won four Gold Gloves, and should have been MVP (he lost to George Bell) in 1987. 

Where's the Hall of Very Good for them? Raines had zero 200-hit seasons and Trammell had one 200-hit seasons.

Raines and Trammell are problematic and I am guilty of inconsistency with their candidacies.

You don't say? This is another problem with the Hall of Fame voting, the inconsistency of the voters. Trammell and Raines get Dan's vote because they've been on the ballot a long time, while Biggio is held to the multiple 200-hit seasons standard that Raines or Trammell can't meet either. 

The Roids Boys are the greatest burden on voters. Some voters don’t care. Some cherry-pick the cheaters. Some turn away from anything that even looks dirty. Withholding votes for guys who cheated and guys who look like they cheated is unfortunate, sometimes unfair, and almost impossible to impose consistently.

It's not really impossible to impose consistently if you choose to impose it consistently. Is there proof that a player used PED's? If so, choose not to vote for them. If there is no proof, but only suspicion because the player looks like he used steroids, then vote for that player to enter the Hall of Fame. It can be imposed consistently.

The thinking becomes, “This was the era. They were all doing it.’’ Or, “Bonds and Clemens were already Hall of Famers before they started cheating.’’

Well, they WERE already Hall of Famers before they started cheating.

Sorry, I am not there. No votes for guys caught using. And worse — no votes for guys who just don’t look right. Bagwell and Piazza are the two players most penalized for this arbitrary crime. By any statistical measurement, Bagwell and Piazza are first-ballot Hall of Famers, yet their vote totals (62 percent for Piazza last year, 54 percent for Bagwell) remain considerably lower than their résumés merit. 

Just like I won't give a person credit for committing a crime and then confessing to it, I won't give Dan credit for being arbitrary in punishing Bagwell and Piazza. At least he can admit he's being arbitrary though. A lot of writers bullshit around Bagwell and Piazza (as you will see), rather than just say "I'm being the moral police and have no real reason for doing so."

Happily, none of the bad stuff ever touched Pedro.

Wait, what? None of that bad stuff ever touched Pedro? If Jeff Bagwell is guilty by association or by how he looked, then please keep in mind Pedro played on teams with Nomar Garciaparra, David Ortiz, Manny Ramirez, Mike Piazza, Jeremy Giambi, and Paul Lo Duca. Every player who played in the Steroid Era is touched by steroids in some fashion. It's impossible to say this bad stuff never touched Pedro, because it's not true. He had plenty of teammates who were in the Mitchell Report or were suspended for using steroids. Of course it's just accepted by Dan that Pedro didn't use steroids, while "the bad stuff" is all over Jeff Bagwell because he was a big guy and hit for power. Pedro would have possibly played with Bagwell too if the Red Sox hadn't traded him to the Astros. "The bad stuff" touched nearly every player during the Steroid Era. Don't act like Pedro was immune.

Speaking of Pedro Martinez, Paul Hoynes wants us to know why he didn't vote for Pedro Martinez to enter the Hall of Fame. Don't worry, he thinks Pedro deserves it. It's just Paul couldn't be bothered to actually submit a Hall of Fame ballot this year. He forgot. Hey, shit happens. Sure, it's an honor to be able to vote for the Hall of Fame and many sportswriters would considered it be an achievement to have this honor, but what good is the privilege if you don't abuse it?

I didn't vote for this year's Hall of Fame class that will be enshrined in Cooperstown in July 26. It's the first time I've missed since I became eligible to vote in 1994.

I forgot to pay the mortgage this month and now I'm living on the street (not really). What's your punishment for abusing the privilege of being able to vote for the Hall of Fame? Nothing? Great, carry on.

Somehow, someway the ballot never got from my mailbox to my eager fingers. Between the curb and my desk, the ballot took a powder. By the time I realized it was really lost, there wasn't time to get a new one.

My bad. I didn't mean to indicate the privilege was abused. The privilege was just lost. That's so much better. Maybe I'm old school, but if I had a Hall of Fame ballot mailed to me then I would probably keep it in a safe place to where it wouldn't get lost. Of course I give a shit about the Hall of Fame and would consider it a privilege to vote, so maybe I'm out of line for believing this.

Well before the ballots were released, I was wrestling with the idea of voting for Pedro Martinez. As great a pitcher as he was, I thought he was punk on the mound.

I feel like every year Hall of Fame voters compete amongst themselves to come up with the most arbitrary reason to not vote for a player. Pedro was a "punk." You know who else was a punk at times? Bob Gibson, Don Drysdale, Nolan Ryan, Juan Marichal and I'm bored of typing now.

In Game 3 of the 2003 ALCS between the Yankees and Red Sox, Martinez threw behind Karim Garcia's head and hit him high in the back in the fourth inning. The players yelled at each other with Garcia eventually gaining revenge on a hard, spikes-up slide at second base.

Which, to be clear, was not a punk move and was simply retribution. I'm sure that's how Hoynes sees it.

In the bottom of the inning, Roger Clemens of the Yankees retaliated by throwing a pitch high in the strike zone to Manny Ramirez. The pitch wasn't as menacing as Martinez's, but Ramirez screamed at Clemens and the teams sprinted onto the field.
The late Don Zimmer, New York's bench coach, came out of the dugout and charged Martinez, standing a good distance from the melee. Martinez yanked Zimmer, 72 at the time, to the ground.

Juan Marichal bashed John Roseboro's head in with a baseball bat and he is in the Hall of Fame. Let's gain some perspective here. Baseball brawls happen.

Since we're having a come to Jesus moment here, I have to say those weren't the only reasons Martinez irritated me. He quite simply dominated the Indians. He was 11-1 with a 1.77 ERA in 16 games against some of the best lineups the Indians have ever fielded.

And that was just the regular season.

A Hall of Fame voter has to be devoid of emotion like this. It's just part of the deal. If a voter can't divorce his emotional feelings from a player from the player's performance through his career then that voter shouldn't have a Hall of Fame vote.

Was Martinez a great pitcher, yes. Would I have voted for him if I had taken proper care of my ballot, yes. Here's why.

He's one of the greatest pitchers in MLB history? 
 
In 2009, 10 years after Martinez eliminated the Indians in that postseason game, he was on his last legs. It was spring training and teams were trying to coax him into pitching one more year. I asked Mark Shapiro, Indians general manager at the time, if he was interested in signing Martinez.
Shapiro said that if he could sign Martinez to a one-year deal, he'd do it in a heartbeat. Now, Shapiro watched Martinez beat the Indians year after year just like I did. He'd seen Martinez's whole act.
But when he looked at him, he saw talent. I saw a punk.

So Hoynes would have voted for Pedro because he saw Pedro as a punk. I'm just glad he would have voted for him, had he remembered where he put his ballot of course.
Emotion had gotten in my way. It's hard to see clearly like that.

Yes, it is. Now if Paul Hoynes could just prevent forgetfulness from getting in the way of him actually submitting his Hall of Fame ballot.

Jeff Schultz of the AJC gives his yearly breakdown of his Hall of Fame ballot. 

I’ve been pretty consistent in my voting philosophy when it comes to the Hall of Fame. I won’t vote for players who used performance enhancing drugs, at least not before there’s some admission of guilt and clarity how it may have affected their numbers.

In the case of Mike Piazza and Jeff Bagwell, Schultz wants them to admit to guilt for the use of PED's that they may not have even taken. Just admit that which you may not have done and Jeff Schultz will honor you with his Hall of Fame vote. If you can't make it all the way up to the pedestal to kneel before Schultz, he'll give you a hand so you can make it up there and hold yourself accountable for something you may not have done.

The Hall of Fame voting process has come under significant scrutiny in recent years, and for good reason. For the last few years, I’ve considered giving up my vote and may still do so if clearer guidelines are not given. 

Here's the thing though. What kind of "clearer guidelines" does there need to be? Does the BBWAA need to tell these Hall of Fame voters who to vote for? Isn't the purpose of having 538 voters that each one has their own criteria and opinion on which players should be inducted and which should not? The BBWAA isn't going to come out and say, "You can't vote for players suspected of using PED's." They can say they will have a PED wing and there will STILL be Hall of Fame voters who will grandstand and state they won't contribute a vote to a player entering this wing.

Those are the eight players I voted for: I consider all of them to have Hall of Fame credentials there also is no reason to believe they used performance enhancing drugs. The players: John Smoltz (first ballot), Randy Johnson (first pitcher), Pedro Martinez (first ballot). Craig Biggio, Fred McGriff, Tim Raines, Curt Schilling, Alan Trammell.

Fair enough. It seems Schultz has a pretty good idea for the criteria he will use to vote players into the Hall of Fame. His criteria and guidelines aren't consistent with the guidelines other voters use, but if the BBWAA takes away part of the voter's decision-making ability to vote for one player over another then they would be dictating how to vote. Even if the BBWAA attempted to clear up how to vote for PED users, which I wouldn't be against, it still won't unmuddy (not a word) the waters. You think if the BBWAA says they will have a PED wing that Mike Piazza will get Murray Chass's vote? Of course not. If the BBWAA says if a player has used PED's then that player can't be in the Hall of Fame, then don't you think this means Jeff Bagwell will be guilty by association? Of course he will. The guidelines are great, but it's still going to be up to each individual voter to choose to vote for a player or not.

Those with two players with HOF credentials I’m in holding pattern on: Mike Piazza, Jeff Bagwell. I may vote for them in the future but I’m using the full extent of the 10-year window allotted to a player’s eligibility on that chance more becomes of allegations  of PED use.

There probably won't be other information that involves provable allegations of PED use. Why not wait for every Hall of Famer's 10-year window to almost run out before voting for that player? Maybe Randy Johnson did use PED's, maybe he didn't. Let's wait and see if more evidence comes out one way or another. John Smoltz came back from Tommy John surgery throwing at a high velocity. Better make him wait 8-9 years to see if any allegations come out against him.

I don't know what makes sportswriters like Jeff Schultz the expert when it comes to determining which players used steroids and which didn't. I'm sure he had Jason Grimsley pegged as a PED user from the start of course. This whole "I'm waiting for new information" thing is just an excuse to push a decision into the future with the hopes some allegations will come out that makes his job as a voter easier. It's been five years (well, more than that) since Bagwell and Piazza retired. Judge their career on what you know now and don't arbitrarily pick players to suspect. If waiting for more allegations (or in the case of Bagwell, any allegations) before voting, then that's fine, just hold every player in the Steroid Era to that standard.

These are 19 other players on the ballot. Some are worthy of Hall consideration but didn’t make it onto my ballot this year: Rich Aurilla, Aaron Boone, Tony Clarke, Carlos Delgado, Jermaine Dye, Darin Erstad, Cliff Floyd, Nomar Garciaparra, Brian Giles, Tom Gordon, Eddie Guardado, Jeff Kent, Edgar Martinez, Don Mattingly, Mike Mussina, Troy Percival, Jason Schmidt, Lee Smith, Larry Walker.

But you could have voted for two more players. Why didn't you vote for them if they are worthy of Hall consideration? What is with all this waiting to vote for players? This is how players suddenly start to creep up in percentage every year. It's not like the career numbers for these players changed. It's that Hall of Fame voters don't want to elect too many players in one year, which is absurd. If Edgar Martinez is a Hall of Famer, then he's a Hall of Famer. How many other players in his Hall of Fame class there are should be irrelevant.

When the voice of reason is Bob Klapisch, the same guy who criticized A-Rod for trying to get into playing shape, then you know some part of the system is broken. I do disagree with a few of Klapisch's choices, but think he is reasonable in his explanations for the most part.

Here, then, is how I voted, broken down into three categories: the slam dunks, the gray-area candidates (who I said yes to) and the one who almost fell off my ballot (but didn’t).

Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz, Craig Biggio, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Mike Mussina, Jeff Bagwell, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens.

Murray Chass hates this ballot and will probably write a retort on his non-blog.

My feelings about Bagwell are similar to those about Bonds, Clemens and Piazza. The former-Astros slugger finished with a .297 career average and 449 home runs. Those numbers have to be viewed through the prism of the PED era, which delivers us to the doorstep of the third category.

Every player's numbers during the Steroid Era have to be viewed through the prism of the Steroid Era. It's not just Bagwell who should be judged by the Steroid Era. Pitchers used PED's too.
 
THE FINAL CUT: Bonds, Clemens, Piazza.

Last year, wrestling with the first-ever steroids era ballot, I decided I would never vote for a proven cheater. That means a permanent “no” on Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro and Alex Rodriguez. The ban applies to Andy Pettitte, too, as much as I like him personally.
 
I still believe that those who used (or use) PEDs gain an unfair advantage over those who follow the rules, whether it’s increased bat-speed or greater raw power or better velocity readings on the radar gun.

Well, this is awkward because Bonds and Clemens are as close to being proven to have used PED's as they could be without admitting it or being caught red-handed.

So why did I vote for Bonds, Clemens, and Piazza? Because, as I stated last year, it’s not my job to investigate or prosecute rule-breakers. Bud Selig took no action against the notorious duo, Bonds and Clemens, which is reason enough for me to stand down, as well. If the federal government couldn’t get a conviction against either one, then the matter is settled.

I don't remember the federal government getting a conviction against Mark McGwire either. Perhaps I'm misremembering.

As for Piazza, I voted for him last year and did so again because there is no proof he used steroids. Don’t ask me to sift through circumstantial evidence like late-career spikes in home run production or back acne. That’s a weak standard to keep someone out of the Hall.

cc: Murray Chass

LEFT IN THE DUST: Schilling, Alan Trammel, Edgar Martinez.

There’s no strong case to be made against Schilling, other than the ballot’s 10-man limit and my insistence that Mussina be included. It was one or the other this year, although I have no doubt Schilling will be elected by 2017 at the latest.

I'd probably vote for Schilling over Mussina personally. Otherwise, it seems that Bob Klapisch has a (fairly easy to understand) standard and that's how he votes. I'm not sure I would put Piazza in the group with Bonds and Clemens and I can't wait for Klapisch to change his mind about Andy Pettitte because Pettitte seemed so damn contrite.

Jerry Green has a reasonable Hall of Fame ballot and wants to remind others (um, Paul Hoynes) that voting for players to enter the Hall of Fame is serious business. Still, there are two things that stand out in this column that don't make sense to me.

It is super serious. I was not being frivolous that day nearly 30 years ago when I left Nelson Fox off my Hall of Fame ballot. I was exercising an opinion — an opinion that I ultimately changed.

It is how we vote — mostly by opinion. We vote, most of the 500-plus of us seasoned baseball writers, by knowledge, by experience, by observation, by conscience, by conversation with others.

Unfortunately, it seems some writers vote based on only their memory and on emotion. Jack Morris had a great game. It made me feel good! He gets my vote!

(looks at Jerry Green)

Our responsibility is to Baseball, the game itself. It is to the players, the best few of those athletes who played the game. But mostly our responsibility is to the fans, those citizens who love sports and who love baseball.

As much as Jerry has vexed me through the years, this is true. The Hall of Fame isn't a shrine or the moral center of the baseball universe. It's a museum for fans of baseball to view the best players who ever played the game.

My ballot consisted of 10 ballplayers I deemed worthy: Craig Biggio, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Edgar Martinez, Pedro Martinez, Mark McGwire, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Gary Sheffield and Alan Trammell.

I pretty much agree with this list here. It's a pretty good ballot, though I would vote Jeff Bagwell in before Gary Sheffield. Jerry Green voted for suspected and proven PED users it seems. There on his ballot is Clemens, McGwire, Piazza, Sheffield, and Barry Bonds.

(checks list again)

It must be a mistake. Let me copy and paste again.

My ballot consisted of 10 ballplayers I deemed worthy: Craig Biggio, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Edgar Martinez, Pedro Martinez, Mark McGwire, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Gary Sheffield and Alan Trammell.

For some reason the copy and paste function keeps leaving Barry Bonds' name out.

(counts up the players listed)

There are 10 players here and Jerry Green is voting for PED users, so the all-time home run king should be on the list. Maybe when writing "Gary Sheffield" Jerry Green meant "Barry Bonds." I mean, I love Alan Trammell, but Barry Bonds should be on any voters list before Trammell if that voter isn't concerned about PED use. So here's my question...HOW THE HELL DOES JERRY GREEN NOT VOTE FOR BARRY BONDS?

Here is the best part. There is no explanation given. Jerry Green includes PED users on his Hall of Fame ballot, but doesn't include Barry Bonds. It's unfathomable to me. The words "Barry" or "Bonds" don't even appear in this article. Jerry Green has erased Bonds from existence and I can't figure out why Bonds is different from Clemens and McGwire. 

Roger Clemens, with 354 victories and some unproven steroid allegations, has a miniscule shot because a multitude of voting writers consider themselves moralists with perfect lifestyles. Mark McGwire is destined to miss out for the same reason.

I chuckled at this because Hall of Fame voters do love themselves some moralizing.

Smoltz won 213 games, mostly as a starting pitcher, and saved 154 as a reliever for the Braves. Great stats.

Jack Morris had greater stats with 254 victories, mostly for the Tigers. He was a dominant pitcher in his World Series and playoffs starts. He pitched for four World Series winners.

Morris was rejected 15 times by the voters of the BBWAA, some of whom just didn't like him because he was too often abrasive to the media. My opinion. Not frivolous.

So if Jack Morris doesn't make the Hall of Fame then Jerry Green will be damned if John Smoltz is making it. Seems fair.

As happened with Nellie Fox, Jack Morris ultimately must be voted belatedly into the Baseball Hall of Fame by the codgers on the Veterans Committee.

The "codgers" on the Veterans Committee? Jerry Green has been working in the sports industry since 1956. That puts him as being at least 77 years old if he started right out of high school. That's like the Civil War pot calling the War of 1812 kettle "old and rusty."

Bill Madden joins Murray Chass in the great bacne conspiracy surrounding Mike Piazza. This has become a real thing.

On his stats alone —.308, 427 homers, .545 slugging percentage, six 100-RBI seasons, 12-time All-Star, most homers as a catcher (396) — Piazza should have been a slam-dunk first-ballot Hall of Famer.

Rob Parker disagrees. (Don't worry, I'M GETTING THERE!)

But even though he never failed a drug test or appeared in the Mitchell Report (as both Bonds and Clemens did), Piazza has been unable to shake the innuendo of having been a steroids user.

Maybe because sportswriters like Bill Madden keep writing columns about how Mike Piazza is under a cloud because of steroids. It's hard to shake the innuendo when those responsible for the innuendo keep bringing it up.

A big reason may be that Piazza’s career went downhill fast and he began being plagued with the kind of injuries often related to steroids in 2003, the year testing began.

Craig Calcaterra covers the retort to this same argument Bill Madden has made on repeated occasions better than I. Piazza was a catcher and any Hall of Fame voter worth a shit knows that catcher is the most physically demanding position on the baseball field. There is a reason that many catchers like Buster Posey end up having a "When he should move positions to first base?" discussion surrounding them. Piazza's career began to decline at the age of 34. No shit. Welcome to the club. Gary Carter started declining at the same time in his career. It happens to catchers who don't have the luxury of being the DH.

A similar case to Piazza is that of Jeff Bagwell, a singles hitter in the minors (six homers in 859 plate appearances) who bulked up when he got to the majors and went on to hit 449 homers with eight 100-RBI seasons and an MVP Award in 1994.

They are similar cases except Mike Piazza wasn't a singles hitter in the minors. So they are both white, right-handed hitters who are linked to steroids, but other than that, Piazza's minor league career does not mirror Bagwell's minor league career. Piazza hit 64 home runs in 1862 at-bats in the minors.

Bagwell also never failed a drug test or appeared in the Mitchell Report, but nevertheless has been widely suspected of being a steroids user. 

Is Bagwell widely suspected or is this just the case of those with the pulpit to saying "Hey! Bagwell is widely suspected of being a steroids user by people!" being the same ones who are the ones doing the suspecting? Could it be those with the megaphone are the ones yelling the loudest, giving the impression of wide suspicion?

And then there is poor Fred McGriff, a five-time All-Star who never had a hint of steroid association. Had he played in any other era, McGriff, with his overall numbers (.284, 493 homers, 1,550 RBI, .303, 10 HR, 37 RBI, .532 slugging in 50 postseason games) easily would have been elected to the Hall. Instead, with those numbers dwarfed by his cheater contemporaries, Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Alex Rodriguez, Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro, McGriff is in danger of falling off the ballot, with just 11.7% support last year.

So McGriff gets the benefit of having no steroid suspicion, but his numbers will also be compared negatively to those who used steroids, even though most Hall of Fame voters think these are tainted numbers. So McGriff would have good enough numbers to make it if he weren't compared to those whose statistics are deemed to be elevated by PED use. Seems fair to hold McGriff to a standard most Hall of Fame voters deem to be artificially achieved while acknowledging McGriff didn't use PED's.

Amid all the controversy over steroids, and the continued presence of Bonds and Clemens on the ballot, a lot of the Baseball Writers are complaining about being limited to vote for only 10 candidates.

Mostly, however, these are the writers who vote for Bonds and Clemens, two guys who are never getting elected.

So who cares what these people think, right?

But as a result, two straight years of three no-brainers coming on the ballot has served to substantially stifle the vote totals of such candidates as Curt Schilling, Jeff Kent and Mike Mussina in particular, who all can make a legitimate case for the Hall.

Jeff Kent? Eh...not sure.

Like every Hall-of-Fame election, this one does promise to stir raging debates, not to mention plenty of intrigue — none more so than with Piazza, who’s eventually going to get elected, but if it turns out to be this year and makes it an electorate of five, it would be the first time that many go in since the original Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Christy Mathewson, Walter Johnson, Honus Wagner class in 1936.

Piazza didn't make it, but Bill Madden's bacne article gloating about this with the mention of bacne (of course) deserves it's very own post. I enjoy how Bill Madden writes an article about Mike Piazza's link to steroids while saying there is a lot of talk about Mike Piazza's link to steroids. It's almost like he is helping to create the news he reports on.

Speaking of Mike Piazza, Rob Parker wouldn't vote for Mike Piazza even while not caring about Piazza constantly being linked to steroids. This is just a crazy opinion that really doesn't deserve any real consideration. I will give it consideration anyway.

Here is Parker's ballot. Notice he thinks Lee Smith deserves induction but Mike Piazza does not.

Anyway, so this is what Rob Parker said about Mike Piazza.

PARKER: I just looked at his numbers, I thought they were very good. There's a lot of guys very good. Fred McGriff's not in the Hall of Fame, he's a few home runs away, three home runs away, from 500. He has way more RBIs than Piazza, he's not in the Hall of Fame.

Because if McGriff sticks around another year and takes 200 at-bats to hit three more home runs then all of a sudden he is a Hall of Famer. Incredibly logical line of thought. McGriff has 215 more RBI's than Mike Piazza. That's over 1846 more at-bats by the way. Remember that Rob Parker gets to vote for the Hall of Fame and these aren't things he has considered. He just derps it up and tries to talk about RBI's, while ignoring how many plate appearances it took each player to get to the RBI number they came to by the end of their career. Just stupid. Sandy Koufax didn't even have 30 RBI's in his career. HOW CAN YOU CONSIDER HIM TO BE A HALL OF FAMER?

So there are guys like him.

There are guys like Piazza. He has the 4th most RBI among catchers in MLB history. Two of those other catchers are in the Hall of Fame. He's 1st in HR among catchers, with the four guys below him all Hall of Famers. He's 6th in hits, with four Hall of Famers immediately below him. 1st all-time in slugging percentage and 2nd all-time in OPS. There are guys like him. They are guys who are in the Hall of Fame.

And I know, it's the catching position, and people want to give more credit because it's so hard to catch and play, but some of the defensive issues—not throwing out runners,

This is an incredibly vague statement, but Piazza had a 23% caught stealing percentage in his career. He is 94th all-time in runners caught stealing with 423. Sure, some of this is a product of teams running on him. Piazza was a historically great hitting catcher. That counts for more than being an average defensive catcher in the same way Ozzie Smith being a defensive wiz put him in the Hall of Fame even though he didn't put up Hall of Fame hitting numbers.

no Gold Gloves as a catcher, things like that—that bothered me. I thought he's a great hitter, he was a great hitter, batted over .300, but something told me he belongs in the Hall of Fame—or, Very Good, but not the Hall of Fame.

That something that told Rob Parker that Mike Piazza shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame? The voices in his head caused by insanity. I despise Piazza as a player, but anyone who thinks he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame is crazy.

Rick Telander says the Hall of Fame cheats are paying the price for their actions. I'm just kidding. He says they are paying the price for Bud Selig's inaction. I'm not a huge Bud Selig fan, but to blame him for players choosing to use PED's seems a little bit like moving the blame to where it shouldn't necessarily completely lie.

Oh, how fun were those days of bulging biceps, Flintstones vitamins and home runs that flew off bats like ball bearings off anvils.

They were the result of a sport run amok on performance-enhancing drugs. And as history informs us, once the conspiracy has been uncovered, somebody’s gonna take the fall. And it’s almost never someone at the top. Find a mid-level, overzealous, loud-mouthed worker. Get a grunt.

And of course, Bud Selig has decided (UNFAIRLY, Rick Telander believes) to have those players who actually took steroids and helped the sport run amok with PED's take the blame. In reality, he should be blaming himself 100%. After all, Selig is the one who was in the locker room everyday interviewing Sammy Sosa and other PED users seeing their bodies changing, noticing the Andro hanging out on the shelf, with their finger on the pulse of the team. Wait, that wasn't Bud Selig who was in the locker room everyday, that was the sports media. They are, of course, in no way to blame for the Steroid Era because it's their job to report the news as it happens with gleeful joy and not question anything they are writing. Look, sportswriters are just along for the ride and it's not their job to question the bulging biceps or Flintstones vitamins. They are certainly no way at fault nor is Sammy Sosa. The blame lies solely not with those in daily contact with the players or the players themselves, but with Bud Selig.

If there were a red ‘‘C’’ — for cheater — that could be hung around Sammy’s neck for all to see, it seems certain the Baseball Writers’ Association of America would do it.

He and his brother-in-arms, McGwire, who was named on only 10 percent of the ballots and also is plummeting toward the vanishing point, are two of the poster boys for the Steroid Era, which has quieted down but never will be clearly completed.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would say that Bud Selig is blameless in all of this. But I always find it funny when the same sportswriters who stood around in awe, wrote pieces about the greatness of these Steroid Era players, and had daily contact with these players are now saying, "HEY! Why didn't someone blow the whistle and stop this shit?"

I think Murray Chass and his bacne theory about Mike Piazza is kind of crazy given Piazza crouched down in a hot uniform all summer, but at least he wanted to write a story about it and his editor would not allow him to do so. Others, like Rick Telander, enjoyed the ride day after day and now wanted someone to step in and do something. Certainly not him though.

Sosa is the guy who just went too far. He rubbed our noses in it, changing from a slender outfielder to a bulging beast before our eyes.

Before your eyes, huh? Interesting how some sportswriters didn't want to point the finger at some of these players during the Steroid Era, but after these players retire, these same sportswriters don't mind accusing players who haven't been proven to use steroids as having used.

Sosa was slain by the law, the government and innuendo while commissioner Bud Selig dozed. Because, yes, Sosa changed shape before Selig’s eyes, too. That Selig did nothing about the obvious muscle madness going on in his leagues for more than a decade is the main reason we have reached the point where statistics mean so little and qualified Hall of Fame players are shunned.

Selig should have been more aware. This was a systematic failure and not just the failure of one person. Blaming Selig for Sammy Sosa using steroids is trying to find a fall guy for the Steroid Era, in the same article where Rick Telander accuses Bud Selig of finding a fall guy for the Steroid Era.

But he built it at the expense of integrity. That he didn’t do anything about rampant steroid use in the majors is a pity, even though the strongman tent show brought Selig’s game back from near irrelevance after the ugly 1994 strike.

If Selig didn’t know men such as Sosa were juicing, then shame on him. 

Right. Shame on Bud Selig. He should have unilaterally started a drug testing policy and forced the union to go along with it. This shouldn't take more than a day or two, right? 

Books, magazine articles, rumors, the drug corruption of the Olympics, bodybuilding freaks everywhere — the evidence was mind-boggling.

The evidence was so mind-boggling that Bud Selig should have stepped in immediately and stopped the madness. Of course, it wasn't so mind-boggling at that point in time that Rick Telander actually broached the subject of just how obvious it was that Sosa was juicing. Phil Rogers was fawning over Sosa after he won the 1998 MVP award and Telander apparently forgot to mention how obvious it was that Sosa was using steroids when he voted for Sosa as the 1998 NL MVP and then said he did it because Sosa was nicer than Mark McGwire. 17 years later it was SO obvious that both players were cheating, it's just that Sosa was being so nice to Rick he forgot to bring it up at the time. He totally thought Sosa was cheating at the time though, I mean how could he not? The evidence was mind-boggling.

Maybe Rick's mind was so boggled by Sosa's politeness and the chase for the home run crown that he didn't feel it was right to bring up steroids as an issue. If so, he's as bad as Bud Selig.

But how convenient to reap the benefits, then let over-egoed simpletons take the rap.

Fall guys. We need them. We find them.

BUT YOU ARE USING BUD SELIG AS A FALL GUY FOR THE STEROID ERA RIGHT NOW!

Writing Tuesday in USA Today, baseball columnist Bob Nightengale said we voters — and I am one — should get over the Steroid Era and vote anybody in who deserves it.
We never will know for sure who was clean and who was dirty the last 30 years, Nightengale wrote, ‘‘so wake up and knock off this absurdity.’’

Not me. It’s not absurd to me. I’ll never vote for players I have judged to be cheaters.

Way to uphold a tough standard that you refused to do 17 years ago. It's good to see a real tough guy beat up on the players for cheating nearly two decades later when you didn't have the foresight and guts to say anything at the time. 

Uncle Bud and the players’ union did nothing to stop cheating for years, so I am forced to do what is unfair.

Yep, Uncle Bud, the players' union, and every sportswriter covering the Cubs, Cardinals and every other MLB team during the Steroid Era did nothing. That includes you, Rick. Get off your high horse.

6 comments I Guess It Is Time to Discuss the Baseball Hall of Fame Again

It's that time of the year. The time of year when people wake up early to go online and see which MLB players/coaches have been inducted into the baseball Hall of Fame and then yell at each other for hours over the Interwebs. It is getting more crucial this year because PED/steroid users are coming up for induction. So now the debates of "Do you let PED users into the Hall of Fame or not" begin. I think there are going to be five ways the voters will look at PED users when casting their vote.

1. PED users will be considered like all other candidates, based on their performance.

2. Proven PED users will not be considered at all, if a player is only suspected of PED use then he would have his candidacy evaluated on his performance like any other player would.

3. Suspected PED users will not be considered for the Hall of Fame at all.

4. Proven and suspected PED users will be considered based on whether the voter believes PED use led to the player's career being considered a Hall of Fame career or not.

5. Some random formulation on how to consider and differentiate suspected/proven PED user Player X versus Player Y. This is probably going to be one of those head scratching ways that many won't understand and isn't consistent from player to player.

I am not exactly sure which crowd I fall into. I can't imagine a Hall of Fame without Barry Bonds in it, but I also can't imagine a Hall of Fame where guys like Rafael Palmeiro get in based on (I perceive) his PED use strengthening his statistics. It's hard to draw a hard line and say Palmeiro would not have been a Hall of Fame player without PED or steroid use. I don't have an answer unfortunately at this point. I will say I lean more towards voter way #1 than any of the others. Perhaps this makes me a steroid apologist. In fact, my order would go this way:

Way #1
Way#4
Way #3
Way#2
Way#5

I will use Jeff Schultz's ballot as a template for this discussion, and of course I will do a little criticism of his ballot...because that's what I do. On a side note, I like Jeff Schultz and he seems to be a reasonable fellow. This isn't necessarily bad journalism, it's a Hall of Fame debate, which everyone seems to enjoy and is based on an opinion based on facts presented.

So, following are the 27 players on the ballot. Voters can select anywhere from zero to 10 players for enshrinement.

Schultz chooses 7 players for enshrinement. That's a pretty good number, if not a little bit high for this class. 10 players on a ballot chosen to make the Hall of Fame would really have to be a good class of candidates.

Some voters are really silly about this, like they won’t vote a guy in the first time because they don’t think he’s a “first ballot” Hall of Famer, but they’ll vote for him after. Seems kind of stupid to me.

I could not agree more. Voters like this deserve to have their ballot ripped out of their hand and given to a person who doesn't have a mental disability that causes them to create fake rules they believe should be used when casting a ballot for an award. A close cousin to the "I don't vote players in the Hall of Fame on the first ballot because the player isn't a 'first ballot' Hall of Famer" fake Hall of Fame rule is the "I don't vote for players as MVP if their team didn't make the playoffs" fake MVP rule.

Anyway, I’m voting for seven. (Prediction: Only Barry Larkin and Jack Morris get the required 75 percent of the vote to make it in.)

Jack Morris. My nemesis. I don't believe he is a Hall of Fame pitcher. This is my favorite way to look at Jack Morris' career...as compared to Bert Blyleven of course. Morris is the favorite of those who use many traditional statistics, while Blyleven's induction was seen as a victory for the advanced statistics crowd. So they are sort of polar opposites in that way.

As always, those who’ve admitted or were suspected of using steroids and/or performance enhancing drugs generally are going to be rejected by voters.

I like how this is just throw in there. "As always," like this is an annual tradition that deserves no further review or justification for existing. Is it really right to keep suspected steroid users out of the Hall of Fame? Is it even right to keep admitted steroid users out of the Hall of Fame?

So with that, here are my thoughts on the candidates. And yes, I’m voting for Murphy.

Boooooooooooooo!!!!!!

Dale Murphy is my favorite Atlanta Brave of all-time. I had a goldfish who lived for 8 years named Dale Murphy and when Murphy was traded I cried like only a young child who has suddenly realized his favorite player will not always play for his favorite team would cry. I wanted to be an outfielder like Dale Murphy (dream ruined by the way. I was put at shortstop because I was...wait for the creativity in position selection by my coach...short) and I still have the newspaper clipping from when Murphy got traded. I love the guy. He's not a Hall of Fame player. Of course, I am the same guy who says John Smoltz shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame, so that may ruin my credibility. Perhaps I am neutral to a fault.

Jeff Bagwell: No. He has a Hall of Fame credentials (449 homers, 1,529 RBI, .297 average, MVP).

Well then out of the Hall of Fame he goes. We don't want players with Hall of Fame credentials. We need players with borderline Hall of Fame credentials, which is why Jim Rice got in.

But he was well short of induction last year with only 41.7 percent of the vote, at least in part because he has been suspected of using PEDs.

I 99% believe Jeff Bagwell used PEDs. I don't think his Hall of Fame candidacy should be diminished because I suspect him of something that was never proven. All of the evidence I have is circumstantial and I don't believe he should be kept out based on suspicion. That being said, I don't think I have a problem with him being left out. I would probably vote Fred McGriff in first...or maybe I wouldn't even vote McGriff in.

Juan Gonzalez: No. Has been linked to steroids and HGH. He was named in the Mitchell Report, which detailed how he was found with a bag at the airport loaded syringes and steroids. Most meaningless statistic of all: his 434 homers.

Jeff Schultz takes the "no players who are linked to steroids will get his vote" (or Way #3 from above). Gonzalez hit .295/.343/.561 for his career and has 2 MVP trophies. I don't know if I would vote him in. I'm a Hall of Fame snob that way.

Sometimes I use comparable players to determine how good a player really was. What I found really interesting is Gonzalez's Top 5 comparable at Baseball-Reference are the following:

1. Albert Belle
2. Lance Berkman
3. Jason Giambi
4. Duke Snider
5. Jose Canseco

Three suspected/known steroid users, a non-Hall of Fame player and a Hall of Fame player. This doesn't really clear anything up, unless you didn't know Gonzalez is a borderline Hall of Famer and he probably used PEDs.

Barry Larkin: Yes. I can’t believe he didn’t get in last year (received 62.1 percent of the votes) but he’ll get in this year. A 12-time All-Star, three-time Gold Glove, nine-time Silver Slugger at shortstop with Cincinnati. Finished with 2,340 hits. Slam dunk.

I have this weird vendetta against Barry Larkin. That being said, I don't see how he doesn't get in the Hall of Fame this year. I have a slight feeling at least 10% of the voters didn't feel he was a "first-ballot Hall of Famer," which is a stupid way to look at Hall of Fame voting, so he will get in this year.

Edgar Martinez: No. A strong case can be made that Martinez has HOF credentials: .312, 2,247 hits, 309 HR, 1,261 RBIs.

I have made my past feelings on Martinez felt here and here. I may have changed my mind since then, though I am not completely sure. That's the advantage of not having a Hall of Fame vote, I don't have to make up my mind and can flip flop all around. I don't really care to look at Martinez as a designated hitter and I have no problem with designated hitters being in the Hall of Fame. Many of those who seem to vote for Martinez talk about how feared he was as a hitter, which is pretty much what got Jim Rice into the Hall of Fame. Martinez's overall hitting totals are incredibly impressive, but his candidacy is hurt for two reasons.

1. His career starting later.
2. He was primarily a designated hitter.

I am not sure I would vote for Edgar Martinez into the Hall of Fame, but I also won't hate it if he gets elected. The fact he was a DH feels pretty irrelevant to me. I always found it interesting Martinez seems to have avoided a lot of the PED use accusations. His best numbers were during the Steroid Era and he seems like one of those guys certain voters would be suspicious of with no proof. For a guy like Jeff Schultz who is keeping players out of the Hall of Fame based on PED suspicion, I feel like this suspicion could go for nearly every player who had great numbers through the Steroid Era.

But I don’t like the fact that for most of his career — 6,218 of 8,672 plate appearances — he was a designated hitter. DH is a half-player in my book.

This is a very narrow way to look at this. I don't see why him being a designated hitter is really relevant. Are players really kept out of the Hall of Fame because they were poor or average at fielding? I'm not sure they are. I didn't see the fielding percentage of Andre Dawson used to support his Hall of Fame candidacy. So I would base my opinion on Martinez just like I would base my opinion of nearly every other hitter in the Hall of Fame...and that's on how well they hit the baseball.

Don Mattingly: Yes. Over 2,000 hits, nine Gold Gloves, seven All-Star Games. One MVP. A great ambassador for baseball. A thousand times, yes.

I go with one time, "no." Gold Gloves won and All-Star Game appearances are both awards that are in essence popularity contests. As good of a defensive player Mattingly was, Gold Gloves were often won on reputation when he played. All-Star Game appearances is a popularity contest that holds as little value to me as possible. He has an MVP, which does hold some value in my opinion, and I don't really care if he is an ambassador.

Mattingly's career line was .307/.358/.471 with 222 home runs and 1099 RBI's. Jeff Bagwell's career line was .297/.408/.540 with 449 home runs and 1529 RBI's. I can't live in a world where Jeff Bagwell, who was a pretty good hitter for 10+ years, doesn't get into the Hall of Fame because there is a suspicion he used steroids, but Don Mattingly gets in because...because...because...he was a pretty good hitter for six years and above average after that. Mattingly is out.

Fred McGriff: Yes. Even if he didn’t hit 493 home runs, I think the fact that the Atlanta-Fulton Stadium press box caught on fire the day the Braves traded for him, cementing their 1995 World Series championship, is reason enough to put him in the Hall.

I realize this is tongue-in-cheek, but when you don't defend your choices for borderline Hall of Fame players I generally assume you don't have a great defense other than he won a championship for the team in the city you currently cover as a writer.

I feel much the same about McGriff as I do Edgar Martinez. I won't hate it if he gets in the Hall of Fame.

Mark McGwire: No. He only finally admitted steroid use, not because of regret or shame but because he wanted to come back to coach and try to salvage his legacy. And by the way, I’m not sure he would’ve been a HOF player without steroids.

There is absolutely no way to know if Mark McGwire would be a Hall of Fame player without steroids. Considering McGwire was linked to steroids, Schtulz doesn't even consider McGwire, but to say McGwire may not have been a Hall of Famer without steroids is pure speculation. Trying to determine any player's true ability without steroids seems pretty complicated and speculative, so it would be hard to say Player X would be a Hall of Famer without knowing how long he used steroids and the exact effect it had on the player.

Jack Morris: Yes. He also should be in already (received 53.5 percent of the vote last year). Beat John Smoltz (barely) in the greatest pitching match-up most have ever seen (1991 World Series). Won 254 games, finished with 2,478 strikeouts, 175 complete games.

Jack Morris should not be in the Hall of Fame. The fact he won Game 7 of the 1991 World Series isn't irrelevant, but it is a pretty lazy way of advocating Morris for the Hall of Fame. I say it is lazy because it ignores Morris' overall playoff record to make it seem like he was some sort of playoff ace. His career playoff record is 7-4 with a 3.80 ERA, 5 complete games, and a 1.245 WHIP. It's pretty good, but it is also easier to focus on one game than look at his overall playoff record, which wasn't entirely great.

Morris did win 254 games. We all know how I feel about wins. So I won't even touch that topic since you can look under the tag "wins are dumb" for my encyclopedia of thoughts on wins. Morris had 2478 strikeouts, which is 32nd of all-time, and those complete games are also impressive. I chalk the strikeouts up to Morris' durability and pitching in the majors for almost 20 years. Tim Wakefield has nearly 2200 strikeouts and I am not sure he is thought of as a strikeout pitcher. So if a pitcher pitches long enough he will accumulate some strikeouts.

What is also important to know is Jack Morris never finished higher than 3rd in the Cy Young voting, so he was a good pitcher, but never had an outstanding year to where he was the best pitcher that year. Morris had a career ERA of 3.90 and never had an ERA in a single season under 3.05. Basically, I am making a case that Jack Morris was a good, durable pitcher for a long time but he was never one of the best pitchers in the majors at any given time. He was never an outstanding pitcher and I think only outstanding pitchers should be represented in the Hall of Fame. If there were a Hall of Very Good, I would vote for him.

Dale Murphy: Yes. Murphy won’t get in but I’m voting for him anyway — again. I’ve heard the arguments about him not having the career numbers

Who cares if the statistics don't back it up? It's what I want, dammit!

But when you win consecutive MVP awards, there’s an acknowledgement that you were one of the best players in the game.

I like how individual accomplishments are used to get Dale Murphy in the Hall of Fame, but the fact Jack Morris never won an individual award (like the Cy Young) for season-long success is completely ignored. Jack Morris should be in the Hall of Fame despite the fact he was never acknowledged as one of the best players in the game. Why? Because he pitched a really good game in the World Series one time and was very durable.

And yes, he should get points for not juicing and representing the game the right way.

No, he probably shouldn't. Again, I love that Dale Murphy was a great guy, but his Hall of Fame candidacy shouldn't be improved by the fact he played the game "the right way" and was an overall good guy. As much as I like high character guys in the Hall of Fame, the whole idea of judging which players played baseball "the right way" in reference to the Steroid Era is too much of a convoluted argument to be looked at in black and white like it often is. Dale Murphy isn't good enough to be in the Hall of Fame.

Tim Raines: Yes. He was one of those players who always scared me. He played 23 seasons and had career averages of .294 with 57 stolen bases and 93 runs. He had six straight seasons of 70-plus steals and the 808 in his career rank fifth all time. For some reason, he has been kept out.

I'm not sure I could have written this better...except for the whole "who always scared me" part. That seems too subjective for me. Tim Raines should be in.

Lee Smith: Yes. But it’s close.

I generally think the saves statistics is overrated. Should Lee Smith get credit for being one of the first and most effective closers in modern day? Maybe. His career ERA of 3.03 is pretty good. I just don't know if he will get in.

But he led the National League in saves four times and his 478 saves rank third in history. Isn’t that worth something?

Possibly. I would most likely vote "no" for Smith. It isn't because he was a bad closer or I hate saves, I just am not sure saves should be the majority reason he gets in the Hall of Fame.

Larry Walker: No. Much like my aversion to career designate hitters (Martinez), I’m predisposed to giving the stink eye to guys who build career numbers in the thin air of Colorado. Walker hit 258 homers and batted .334 in 10 years with the Rockies. He hit 125 homers and batted .282 in eight seasons in Montreal and St. Louis.

To be fair, Walker played the prime of his career in Colorado from the ages of 28 to 36. Walker played in Montreal from the ages of 22 to 27 and with the Cardinals from the ages of 37-38. So while I can understand how the Coors Effect may factor into the decision-making, it is very difficult to ignore the idea Walker played in Colorado during the years when he should have been putting up his best career numbers. It doesn't ruin Schultz's point about Walker, I am just pointing out Walker put up the best numbers of his career in Colorado, which was also the prime of his career.

Still, I have to admit Walker's home/road splits are pretty tough to justify there wasn't some Coors Effect:

Home (3429 at-bats): .348/.431/.637 with 215 home runs.
Road (3478 at-bats): .278/.370/.495 with 168 home runs.

Bernie Williams: No. Another very good player, but that’s it. If his vote total becomes inflated, it’s because he played for the Yankees.

Much like Don Mattingly's vote total would be inflated because he played for the Yankees?

I want to play a game. Let's look at Mattingly's career totals next to Bernie Williams career totals. Just for shits and giggles.

Don Mattingly: 14 seasons, .307/.358/.471, 222 home runs, 1099 RBI's, 7721 plate appearances, 7 All-Star Games, 1 MVP, 9 Gold Gloves, 39.8 career WAR, 127 OPS+.

Bernie Williams: 16 seasons, .297/.381/.477, 287 home runs, 1069 RBI's, 9053 plate appearances, 5 All-Star Games, 4 Gold Gloves, 47.3 career WAR, 125 OPS+.

Clearly there is a difference in plate appearances but Mattingly would average 20 home runs and 100 RBI's 53 walks and 40 strikeouts if averaging his career statistics over a 162 game season, while Bernie Williams would average 22 home runs and 98 RBI's, 83 walks and 95 strikeouts over 162 games.

They seem to be somewhat similar hitters. I don't think Bernie Williams deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, but Mattingly would essentially get in because of an MVP, five more Gold Gloves, and 2 more All-Star Game appearances. Winning personal awards is what helps a player's Hall of Fame candidacy, so this may make perfect sense. Bernie certainly has the advantage in team championships, but I'm not sure how much that should really count. I personally don't believe either player should be in the Hall of Fame.

Eric Young: No. Played for 15 seasons. And that’s all I’ve got to say about that.

No Eric Young? Then this is no Hall of Fame I ever care to set foot upon.

I have a question anyone who wants to answer. Wallace Matthews has given his readers a chance to talk him into Bernie Williams being voted into the Hall of Fame on Matthews' ballot. I have a hard time figuring out what I think about this.

On one hand, I think a more well-informed Hall of Fame ballot can't ever be a bad thing. Soliciting reader's opinions on Williams may help better flesh out his candidacy for Wallace Matthews. A reader could point out a fact or a comparison that would better put Williams' candidacy in a more positive or more negative light.

On the other hand, Wallace Matthews has a ballot for a reason. He is supposed to be smart and well-versed enough to be able to vote independently about Williams' credentials to decide if he gets elected into the Hall of Fame or not. If a voter needs the public to help him flesh out Williams' candidacy then that voter may not deserve to vote for players in the Hall of Fame. What's the point of having baseball experts vote for the Hall of Fame if they rely on non-experts to help them make a case for a player?

I wondered what everyone's position on Wallace Matthews soliciting the opinion of others on Bernie Williams was.

3 comments We're Not Sinking, That Was Not An Iceberg, and We Have Plenty of Lifeboats...Look! Something Shiny!

I hate Jay Mariotti and other writers who just rip into teams/managers for no apparent reason. It seems bitter and angry to just tear into a team/manager based on a personel vendetta. There is a flip side to this though. Unbridled enthusiasm from a should-be neutral columnist that takes a negative and tries to make it positive or goes to old, "at least we still play hard" excuse. Jeff Schultz, blind us with bullshit first please.

Given that the line between sports and accounting blurred years ago, the Braves could be excused if they viewed this off-season much like Ms. Peebles in bookkeeping. Never mind the names, the Q-scores or the legacies of exiting players. How fat are the paychecks?

I am not googling this reference but I am assuming it has nothing to do with baseball and should be exorcised from this column. The Braves have made horrible personnel moves in the past and now they are all coming off the books! Get me 45 virgins and 45 bottles of wine for every man! They can't run a team efficiently and now they have more money to screw it up. Giddy up bitches, we are headed away on the wagon of stupidity!

Make way. The Braves are about to head somewhere they haven’t really been in years. The mall.

The postseason? The World Series? Headed towards respectability?

It is now a good thing the Braves have free agents that either:

1. are horrible at the game of baseball

2. are too old for the game of baseball

3. are too old and injured to play the game of baseball

If the object of the sport were to accumulate as many contracts as possible for players who are 5 years past their prime, then the Braves have won the World Series.

“It’s a situation we relish, and we’re looking at this off season with great enthusiasm,” said Braves chairman Terry McGuirk.

The front office has proven themselves to be horrible personnel decision makers and are glad they get a chance to change the players on the roster in the off season due to their inability to put together a good team.

Hello, C.C. Sabathia or Ben Sheets?

Goodbye money and common sense? Ben Sheets is an injury machine and will want too much money. I say no, which means they will say yes.

No more plugging holes with slight irregulars or Corky Millers.

Now they can plug one of the eight holes they have with a player who costs $20 million per year. This makes perfectly no sense.

Also, nobody forced them to play Corky Miller or even sign Corky Miller and they did it anyway. What makes you think they are going to not overpay for someone who is even shittier?

When asked if that meant the Braves were free to balloon the payroll to $200 million, McGuirk said: “I have some sense of what would be the right thing to do. I’m not going to do something stupid.”

Quick summation:

Signing a 34 year old coming off back surgery is smart.

Signing a 41 year old pitcher for $8 million is smart.

Counting on a 40 year old pitcher with an injury history is smart.

Having Corky Miller be your back up catcher is smart.

Signing Ben Sheets who has never had 30 starts in a year is smart.

Ballooning the payroll is stupid.

I would agree, but I am not sure we can all agree they are not going to do something stupid with all of this money they have. This from the same team that once traded for J.D. Drew intentionally.

I think everyone who even cares a little about the Braves should worry a little bit. Except Jeff Schultz, he is positive they know what they are doing, even though there is no track history to support this over the past 5 years.

So began the slashing. A perfect storm of broken down bodies and expiring contracts has killed the season but plowed the field.

It is actually good news the whole team is injured and horrible this year, it means we don't have the same players next year! Awesome!

McGuirk calls it “the first time we’ve really had the chance to have a rebuilding effort.”

Remember when the Braves trotted out Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz on consecutive days? That sucked, now the Braves get to start over, that is way more exciting! So what if your house burnt down? Now you get to build a whole new house!

Tons of money to spend on free agency is not the solution to a broken team, smart personnel decisions is the key. That has not happened in Atlanta in five years.

What flavor Bobby Cox brand Kool Aid is Terence Moore drinking?

Terence Moore is just happy there is still hustle in the team. Which is pathetic, if I do say so myself. You can tell a team is really bad when someone writes the obligatory, "at least they are still playing hard" column. That is rock bottom.

The Braves haven’t stopped losing, but you know what? They also haven’t stopped hustling.

Unfortunately the entire point of the game of baseball is to win and not lose. Hey, hustling is great though, just combine that with winning, and it sounds really good...which the Braves have not done.

Then Glavine added, “To be honest with you, they should be playing hard.”

They should also attempt to win a ball game. You don't get runs in a game for just playing really, really hard.

Yeah, but it’s like this: Sometimes, with 162 baseball games stretching forever, the hustling vanishes. The Philadelphia Phillies are winning, and it happened to them, when reigning MVP Jimmy Rollins was benched for failing to sprint to first base on a dropped pop fly.

What an asshole! So the Braves should feel lucky the team is still playing hard, even though it is not reflected in the team's record, while the Phillies should drink cyanide because one player failed to run out a pop fly, but they are winning. I would rather have a team full of base clogging fat ass players who never hustle but are .5 games out of the wild card spot, than a team far below .500 that runs around the bases on pop flies like they are being chased by the cops.

Call me crazy on this but it is just how I feel. I enjoy winning, no matter how the team looks doing it. If winning was heroin, I would always have an open vein for it.

The Tampa Bay Rays are winning, and it happened to them. The gifted B.J. Upton was benched for loafing on a double-play grounder.

What a lazy piece of shit. Now I am embarrassed for the Rays and I bet they are embarrassed as well. I called the Rays and B.J. Upton to see how they felt about this, but was told by a secretary with a husky voice named Claire they have the best record in baseball and hustle doesn't matter much if you are winning baseball games. Claire was such a bitch.

Such issues haven’t happened to the otherwise imploding Braves, owners of one winning month this season.

Thank God the only issue the Braves have had this year is their ability to win baseball games and put a winning team on the field. I am sure the fans feel really great knowing all the players are running out the weak pop flies they hit and are trying to break up all the double plays they are hitting into.

Since when was mediocrity accepted and encouraged by a major league team? Have some pride.

They’ve had other issues, though.

You must mean the hitting, pitching, and bullpen issues that has prevented them from winning games? The manager's inability to make effective changes to the lineup that resulted in Greg Norton hitting cleanup? You could also be speaking of the front office's inability to identify and draft young players so the team is forced to trade current prospects for expensive free agents to be that has not only depleted the farm system but also caused Casey Kotchman to be a centerpiece of a major trade.

(Kotchman is on bereavement leave right now. There is no word if it is a family member or his baseball career that has died.)

The issues could also be the Braves consistently count on Mike Hampton to pitch well and had not taken any steps to work on Jeff Franceour's swing until it became a major problem.

After left fielder Omar Infante caught a line drive on Monday in the first inning, he trotted toward the Braves’ dugout. It was the second out of the inning, not the third, which is why the Giants’ Dave Roberts tagged up from third base and scored without a throw.

I guess the issue he is talking about is the basic inability for the players on the team to understand the rules of baseball and stay focused on the field. I am sure Infante hustled to the dugout though, so all is forgiven! Take a couple laps Omar---wait, you love to hustle so you would love to do that. Your punishment is you have to help your team win a game or two. That will show you.

Regardless of whether the team loses constantly, don't know the rules of baseball, nor can they make any good personnel decisions, regardless of all that, Terence Moore is just happy the team is hustling.

Infante’s gaffe was more a lack of focus than of effort.

Both leading to the same result...the team loses, so there is no difference if it was a lack of effort, focus or poor bladder control that caused him to have to leave the field at that moment. Either way, Dave Roberts scored a run and here is the kicker...it doesn't fucking matter why or how he scored, but the fact is he scored a run. Let's get back to basics here. Hustling, dancing, and doing somersaults in the outfield do not matter if you and your team stinks. Quit drinking the Bobby Cox Kool Aid and get into the real world.

The ongoing show for the Braves is wretched. As a result, much less than the announced crowd of 18,113 came to Monday’s finale against the Giants,

Attendance is going down and the team stinks? Sounds like you need to up that payroll as soon as possible because it makes perfect "business sense." Mr. Moore go to the cubicle next door and speak with Mr. Schultz, you may want to speak to each other about how when revenues are going down, it does not make sense to spend more money.

Of course then you would have to think for yourself and that is not quite as much fun as just quoting someone in the front office about how things are going to get better.

but that’s more folks than the Braves of the late 1980s often attracted at home during an entire week. Glavine remembers, because he was there, when the Braves were destined to lose 100 games before the first pitch of each of those seasons.

Explain to me, Terence with one "R" Moore, how the hell this is a good thing to compare the present situation to the most losingest point in the history of the franchise.

(Patient) "Three of my four arteries are clogged aren't they doc? Will I ever get the movement back in my left arm?"

(Doctor) "Probably not, but remember in 1990 when you had quadruple bypass surgery? Wow! You were really clogged then, this time it is only three arteries, so this should not be bad at all to fix."

(Patient) "What about my left arm paralysis?"

(Doctor leaves room walking backwards saying words of encouragement about the patient only having three arteries clogged)

Any comparison between the Braves of then and now? “No, because with those teams, we were so bad that there was no light at the end of the tunnel,” Glavine said. “I think with this team, you look and go, ‘Oh, man.’

"Oh man, this team is bad and I am glad I am not going to be here next year to suffer through all of this misery?"

You get a couple of guys here and there healthy, and they’re back next year. And if you make a splash or two with a free agent or even a trade — I mean, this team has a chance of being right back in the thick of things next year.”

The problem is this. What if these new guys don't hustle? Then the Braves would just be a team that won ball games and what good is that really?

First, the Braves have to get through this year, and that’s the problem.

They are still hustling though! The problem is not getting through this year, the problem is a lack of good baseball players chosen to be on the team, and whether they hustle or not, new ball players are not guaranteed to be any better.