No one to the hall this year

[kaldaniels]

Originally Posted by TRF

Piazza is also getting dinged for that weenie arm of his, the fact that he was a below average catcher defensively and had horrible hair.

Was he a PED user? i know what i think, but i also know i don't care. He had to compete against pitchers using PED's, peers using them and if he was a user, they didn't help that much towards the end of his career.

I kinda like Biggio. maybe next year.

I've always waffled on the first ballot HOF argument. I agree with the notion of either you are or you aren't, but at the same time 1st ballot always seemed reserved for the elite of the elite. KGJ in my mind is a 1st ballot guy. Biggio is not. But i think he gets in. 3000 hit will do that for a guy not named Palmeiro.

Biggio doesn't strike me as a first ballot guy either. He'll be in soon enough.

[mace]

Originally Posted by OnBaseMachine

Not sure how Piazza didn't get it.

Amen.

That's absurd. While everybody acknowledges he was the greatest hitting catcher ever, he was penalized for being 1) a poor defensive catcher, and 2) suspected of using PEDs.

As for 1): Yes, he had difficulties in throwing out baserunners. Yet, his catcher's ERA was typically excellent. And lest you dismiss that metric, more sophisticated studies have recently rated him as one of the best ever at blocking pitches and, most significantly, No. 3 all-time in handling pitchers. So his defense, in fact, was actually a positive.

Regarding 2): He never tested positive and wasn't named in the Mitchell Report. Critics are of course entitled to suspect him nevertheless, but to me that suspicion is not nearly enough to indict. That's tantamount to declaring him guilty until proven innocent.

[M2]

Originally Posted by vaticanplum

Except the very writers who built these players up when they knew they were juicing, because it behooved them to do so at the time, are now the ones taking a stance against them on moral grounds. And once again, they're doing so now because it appeases the current trend of public opinion and serves their own careers well.

Illegal? Maybe not. But it certainly doesn't sit well with me from a moral standpoint.

The job of a team owner is to run a profitable enterprise. The job of a union is to protect its members. The job of a journalist is to expose the truth. All are beholden to their own consciences in terms of where and how their value systems affect the way they do their job; I don't know what those value systems are, so I can't say who failed in that. But the way I see it, only one of those groups of people failed at the job.

Dammit, reinstitute the rep button so I can rep vp's post. Best single thing I've read anywhere on this vote.

[George Anderson]

Originally Posted by oneupper

Ken Burns is happy with the result.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-bi...9555--mlb.html

I value Frank Burns opinion on baseball about as much as I do Ken Burns.

[TRF]

Originally Posted by mace

Amen.

That's absurd. While everybody acknowledges he was the greatest hitting catcher ever, he was penalized for being 1) a poor defensive catcher, and 2) suspected of using PEDs.

As for 1): Yes, he had difficulties in throwing out baserunners. Yet, his catcher's ERA was typically excellent. And lest you dismiss that metric, more sophisticated studies have recently rated him as one of the best ever at blocking pitches and, most significantly, No. 3 all-time in handling pitchers. So his defense, in fact, was actually a positive.

Regarding 2): He never tested positive and wasn't named in the Mitchell Report. Critics are of course entitled to suspect him nevertheless, but to me that suspicion is not nearly enough to indict. That's tantamount to declaring him guilty until proven innocent.

Those Dodger and Met teams had some very good pitching on them. Now sure some guys drafted in the 62nd round have careers so spectacular to warrant HOF consideration... wait, that almost never happens.

I watched Piazza, grew up watching him. I'm a few months older than him in fact. He was really a bad catcher defensively, and played for teams with stellar pitching. With the bat, no doubt he was a force, though his numbers dropped significantly after 2002. And that actually lends credence to him not being a PED user. or if he was, he certainly saw the writing on the wall and quit. But as i said, i don't care if he did. My eyes say he was a bad defensive catcher and most HOF voters probably agree with that. If we are going by his bat alone, Edgar Martinez says hi.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by Reds Fanatic

Craig Biggio came closest at 68.2 percent

Clemens got 37.6 percent and Bonds got 36.2 percent of the vote.

Wow, that seems to indicate to me that there's a good Clemens/Bonds will never get in. But maybe not? Some voters seem to place high esteem on this "First ballot" honor. Never understood that.

Biggio is definitely a HOFer.. Kind of a joke he did not get in.

[CySeymour]

Are the writers calling these guys cheaters the very same writers who voted in Gaylord Perry?

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by CySeymour

Are the writers calling these guys cheaters the very same writers who voted in Gaylord Perry?

Probably not a ton of them. GP went in in 1991. That was 22 years ago. A lot of turnover since then I imagine.

[George Anderson]

Originally Posted by CySeymour

Are the writers calling these guys cheaters the very same writers who voted in Gaylord Perry?

Perry was elected in 1991 so I would guess alot of those writers are no longer with us or not voting.

[RedFanAlways1966]

Originally Posted by vaticanplum

Except the very writers who built these players up when they knew they were juicing, because it behooved them to do so at the time, are now the ones taking a stance against them on moral grounds. And once again, they're doing so now because it appeases the current trend of public opinion and serves their own careers well.

Can it be proven (writers knew)? It is a two-way street though. Perhaps the writers did not know during those players' careers (do you have proof that says otherwise, if so please share). Of course we all hear the defenders of these players say there is no proof that they did PEDs. You say the writers knew at the time. But many fellow defenders of these players say there is no proof. Can "the defenders" have it both ways?!?

But letting the writers decide these things has always been a bad idea IMO.

[Kc61]

Any system that excludes Mike Piazza from the Hall of Fame is a joke. He is not a proven PED user to my knowledge and his performance on the field absolutely is Hall of Fame caliber.

Now we have baseball writers as judge, jury, and executioner based on public speculation about steroid use.

I just saw a panel on ESPN say the "system worked." Not it didn't.

[PuffyPig]

Originally Posted by mace

Amen.

That's absurd. While everybody acknowledges he was the greatest hitting catcher ever, he was penalized for being 1) a poor defensive catcher, and 2) suspected of using PEDs.

As for 1): Yes, he had difficulties in throwing out baserunners. Yet, his catcher's ERA was typically excellent. And lest you dismiss that metric, more sophisticated studies have recently rated him as one of the best ever at blocking pitches and, most significantly, No. 3 all-time in handling pitchers. So his defense, in fact, was actually a positive.

Regarding 2): He never tested positive and wasn't named in the Mitchell Report. Critics are of course entitled to suspect him nevertheless, but to me that suspicion is not nearly enough to indict. That's tantamount to declaring him guilty until proven innocent.

He was also a putz.

[Hoosier Red]

What frustrates me is that the writers are punishing both the power hitters(and power pitcher) who they suspect used steroids because their numbers are "juiced" but they're also punishing top of the order hitters like Lofton, Trammel, and Raines because their numbers weren't out of this world great when compared to the "juiced" numbers of their contemporaries.

[klw]

Originally Posted by PuffyPig

He was also a putz.

Even worse he was a Met and a Dodger.

[CySeymour]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Probably not a ton of them. GP went in in 1991. That was 22 years ago. A lot of turnover since then I imagine.

You and George Anderson are right. My main point was he was a cheat and got elected, no problem. Seems like a double standard.