I read Ball Four! Great book! I also read Baseball Cop, Game of Shadows, The Rocket That Fell To Earth, and probably another 200 baseball related books over my lifetime. There is a difference between performance maintaining, and performance enhancing. Should we throw Joe DiMaggio out of the Hall because he drank an inordinate amount of coffee for the caffeine rush? Also, being a racist or a drunk NEVER helped a player hit the ball farther or run faster. The integrity I speak of is regarding the outcome of the games, not the players playing it. Unless and until a player influences the integrity of the game I have no concern with him as a person. The man up stairs will sort that one out.
And you know the difference between performance maintaining and performance enhancing? I hope you are campaigning hard to have Gaylord Perry removed from the HOF. And since you seem to know so much about who did what, perhaps you could identify all the players who used PED's who are already in the Hall and campaign to have them removed as well. Keep in mind anabolic/androgenic steroids have been around and used by athletes since the 1950's, so you've got some work to do.
The fact that those memos are not in any way binding until negotiated and agreed to by both sides, player's association and MLB? The commissioner cannot unilaterally impose the "rules" included in those memos.
Thank you for the response, I really appreciate it! The policy states: "This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids." So it is your position that an organization cannot implement a policy that prohibits illegal activity without negotiating with the labor union? Where is that line drawn, armed robbery, murder, etc? They broke the law when they started using controlled substances. They violated employment policy as far back as 1991. They cheated. It's really that simple. They impacted the integrity of the game and should not be rewarded for it.
If they break the law, it's a law enforcement issue, not an employment issue. They did not violate any employment policy, again, because the commissioner did not, and does not, have the power to unilaterally impose such a policy. As to the integrity of the game, as much as I love the game of baseball, the integrity of MLB has long ago been exposed as nothing more than a myth. Racism, alcoholism and other drug abuse (see greenies, speed), womanizing, etc. Read Ball Four for crying out loud, and then climb down off your soap box.
Thanks for sharing your ballot and your thinking on the voting! I'm really glad you mention you will vote for Helton next year. He is clearly a well qualified candidate at 1B if one includes defense, at which he was excellent, and can figure out how to use park adjusted figures to realize he really was a great hitter even after adjusting for altitude. Honestly, with defense considered, he's a much better candidate than Ortiz, and much better than Kent, who is really a borderline 2B with defense included. He just wasn't great enough for long enough with the bat to overcome a slow/late start to his career. Rollins I don't see as anywhere near HOF level for a SS. Yes, he had great speed (triples and SB), and played great D early in his career, but the best five year peak he can put together with the bat is a 105 OPS+, barely above average. Overall this leaves him as a Hall of Very Good player for me, very low peak, lots of good seasons, just not enough great ones.
Solid ballot. The notion that the powers of MLB and the union were complicit in the steroid era is spot on. And Selig IS in the HOF…along with Pudge who, after looking at his year-to-year stat lines, appears PED questionable at best.
Writers, and I believe Tom Verducci is one of them, who use the gray of the character clause to eliminate HOF candidates should be ashamed of themselves.
I would also say this:
With advanced metrics giving HOF worthy players a possible edge in getting in—it’s time to reevaluate pre PED players like Dwight Evans, Dale Murphy, Fred McGriff, Tommy John, Dave Parker, and Fred Lynn another look. Just my opinion.
Also, there's really nothing gray about the character clause. It's very straight-forward. That said, Jeff's right in that the HOF and MLB give no other guidance or direction in how to consider the PED users, leaving it to each voter to decide on their own parameters and guidelines.
You kinda made my point for me. Leaving character up to the voters is something that can’t be argued as well as statistical measures. Some throw the wording out completely. Other voters hang their hat on it. A few voters recently have been so frustrated in the process they declined their right to vote in the future. It’s a mess!
There are not so nice guys in the Hall already. No?
As far as the committees that have been formed to enshrine players from previous eras, we’ll, they were formed to right past voting wrongs. Look at Kaat and Oliva. Poor guys are up there in age, but thankfully still alive. Minoso sadly has passed and so has O’Neil. It’s a shame.
I’m a fan. Not a voter. And I’m just saying I don’t like the way voting happens these days.
Bill, the players you mentioned and all others are reevaluated every 2 years by HOF Historical Overview Committee, of which I'm a member. A 10-player ballot is decided upon by the 11 historians and then forwarded to the Old-Timers Committee to consider and vote on.
I read Ball Four! Great book! I also read Baseball Cop, Game of Shadows, The Rocket That Fell To Earth, and probably another 200 baseball related books over my lifetime. There is a difference between performance maintaining, and performance enhancing. Should we throw Joe DiMaggio out of the Hall because he drank an inordinate amount of coffee for the caffeine rush? Also, being a racist or a drunk NEVER helped a player hit the ball farther or run faster. The integrity I speak of is regarding the outcome of the games, not the players playing it. Unless and until a player influences the integrity of the game I have no concern with him as a person. The man up stairs will sort that one out.
And you know the difference between performance maintaining and performance enhancing? I hope you are campaigning hard to have Gaylord Perry removed from the HOF. And since you seem to know so much about who did what, perhaps you could identify all the players who used PED's who are already in the Hall and campaign to have them removed as well. Keep in mind anabolic/androgenic steroids have been around and used by athletes since the 1950's, so you've got some work to do.
Why do so many of you voters ignore the facts?
http://www.espn.com/espn/eticket/story?num=19&page=steroidsExc&redirected=true
The fact that those memos are not in any way binding until negotiated and agreed to by both sides, player's association and MLB? The commissioner cannot unilaterally impose the "rules" included in those memos.
Thank you for the response, I really appreciate it! The policy states: "This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids." So it is your position that an organization cannot implement a policy that prohibits illegal activity without negotiating with the labor union? Where is that line drawn, armed robbery, murder, etc? They broke the law when they started using controlled substances. They violated employment policy as far back as 1991. They cheated. It's really that simple. They impacted the integrity of the game and should not be rewarded for it.
If they break the law, it's a law enforcement issue, not an employment issue. They did not violate any employment policy, again, because the commissioner did not, and does not, have the power to unilaterally impose such a policy. As to the integrity of the game, as much as I love the game of baseball, the integrity of MLB has long ago been exposed as nothing more than a myth. Racism, alcoholism and other drug abuse (see greenies, speed), womanizing, etc. Read Ball Four for crying out loud, and then climb down off your soap box.
Thanks for sharing your ballot and your thinking on the voting! I'm really glad you mention you will vote for Helton next year. He is clearly a well qualified candidate at 1B if one includes defense, at which he was excellent, and can figure out how to use park adjusted figures to realize he really was a great hitter even after adjusting for altitude. Honestly, with defense considered, he's a much better candidate than Ortiz, and much better than Kent, who is really a borderline 2B with defense included. He just wasn't great enough for long enough with the bat to overcome a slow/late start to his career. Rollins I don't see as anywhere near HOF level for a SS. Yes, he had great speed (triples and SB), and played great D early in his career, but the best five year peak he can put together with the bat is a 105 OPS+, barely above average. Overall this leaves him as a Hall of Very Good player for me, very low peak, lots of good seasons, just not enough great ones.
Solid ballot. The notion that the powers of MLB and the union were complicit in the steroid era is spot on. And Selig IS in the HOF…along with Pudge who, after looking at his year-to-year stat lines, appears PED questionable at best.
Writers, and I believe Tom Verducci is one of them, who use the gray of the character clause to eliminate HOF candidates should be ashamed of themselves.
I would also say this:
With advanced metrics giving HOF worthy players a possible edge in getting in—it’s time to reevaluate pre PED players like Dwight Evans, Dale Murphy, Fred McGriff, Tommy John, Dave Parker, and Fred Lynn another look. Just my opinion.
Thanks, Bill. Voting is a flawed process, but I’m grateful to get to do it. I voted for McGriff, by the way.
Also, there's really nothing gray about the character clause. It's very straight-forward. That said, Jeff's right in that the HOF and MLB give no other guidance or direction in how to consider the PED users, leaving it to each voter to decide on their own parameters and guidelines.
You kinda made my point for me. Leaving character up to the voters is something that can’t be argued as well as statistical measures. Some throw the wording out completely. Other voters hang their hat on it. A few voters recently have been so frustrated in the process they declined their right to vote in the future. It’s a mess!
There are not so nice guys in the Hall already. No?
As far as the committees that have been formed to enshrine players from previous eras, we’ll, they were formed to right past voting wrongs. Look at Kaat and Oliva. Poor guys are up there in age, but thankfully still alive. Minoso sadly has passed and so has O’Neil. It’s a shame.
I’m a fan. Not a voter. And I’m just saying I don’t like the way voting happens these days.
You can disagree. That’s fine.
Bill, the players you mentioned and all others are reevaluated every 2 years by HOF Historical Overview Committee, of which I'm a member. A 10-player ballot is decided upon by the 11 historians and then forwarded to the Old-Timers Committee to consider and vote on.