2013 MLB Hall of Fame ballot

[jonumberone]

In what is for sure to be one of the most controversial votes in a long time, The BBWAA released the 2013 ballot for the MLB HOF.

Here is the new Hall of Fame ballot. For holdovers, numbers refer to previous year's votes, percentage of ballots and years on ballot.

Sandy Alomar Jr.
Jeff Bagwell 321, 56.0%, 2
Craig Biggio
Barry Bonds
Jeff Cirillo
Royce Clayton
Roger Clemens
Jeff Conine
Steve Finley
Julio Franco
Shawn Green
Roberto Hernandez
Ryan Klesko
Kenny Lofton
Edgar Martinez 209, 36.5%, 3
Don Mattingly 102, 17.8%, 12
Fred McGriff 137, 23.9%, 3
Mark McGwire 112, 19.5%, 6
Jose Mesa
Jack Morris 382, 66.7%, 13
Dale Murphy 83, 14.5%, 14
Rafael Palmeiro 72, 12.6%, 2
Mike Piazza
Tim Raines 279, 48.7%, 5
Reggie Sanders
Curt Schilling
Aaron Sele
Lee Smith 290, 50.6%, 10
Sammy Sosa
Mike Stanton
Alan Trammell 211, 36.8%, 11
Larry Walker 131, 22.9%, 2
Todd Walker
David Wells
Rondell White
Bernie Williams 55, 9.6%, 1
Woody Williams

Thoughts?
Who gets in? Who doesn't?
Do Clemens, Bonds, Sosa, and the like ever see the hall?

Discuss!

[pnoon]

My choices are as follows:

Don Mattingly
Tim Raines
Lee Smith
Alan Trammell
Larry Walker

Some of the names even under consideration are comical.

"Do Clemens, Bonds, Sosa, and the like ever see the hall?
IMO, No - for the obvious reasons. But set those reasons/criteria aside and they are no-brainers.

[shilala]

I'm excited to see what happens.
Personally, I think the Writer's couldn't possibly care about the "steroid era".
Reason being, they're educated. Ball players have always juiced and always will. Anything to give them an edge. They know how many Hall of Famers there are that used substances to help their game. That's how I think on where the bulk of the writer's personal mindset lies.

That said, they'll likely use this first ballot to test the waters. Don't vote for Bonds and Clemens and see where the public response lies. Their first loyalty is to political correctness, of course. They pander to the public and write what will keep the paychecks coming rather than what they necessarily think is true or right. I can't imagine for a minute they'll stick their necks out, enshrine a couple bobbleheads, then cross their fingers that public opinion doesn't execute them. Imagine for a minute what would be in the newspapers and on ESPN? "Baseball Writers Want Your Kids To Use Steroids!!!"

After we see the fallout from the obvious roid users not being enshrined, we should all have a good idea where this is headed. I think it's headed toward them being enshrined, but baseball is steeped in a tradition of being obstinate, so there's that.
If there's one indicator I can point to that guages public sentiment on roids, it's Lance Armstrong. He just got stripped of his titles, was juicing, blah, blah, blah. The public outcry was zero. I love Lance, everybody loves Lance. Nobody cares and everyone thinks what happened was ridiculous. We still love Lance, he's a good dude, and he's badass.
Bonds and Clemens are not good dudes, they're the opposite. If anything, it's their personalities that will make it easy not to accept them. Let's see what happens with Sammy after this year.

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by shilala

Personally, I think the Writer's couldn't possibly care about the "steroid era".
Reason being, they're educated. Ball players have always juiced and always will. Anything to give them an edge. They know how many Hall of Famers there are that used substances to help their game. That's how I think on where the bulk of the writer's personal mindset lies.

I am not sure, Scott....how do you explain 6 years of Mark McGwire? He wasn't even accused of using true anabolics, just prohormoes. Maybe the writers just don't like the guy?

[mahtofire14]

I think it's a huge deal to the writers. They are all purists. They hold these players to such a standard that when a known steroid user makes it on the ballot they are pretty much offended by them, and rarely vote for them.

I say Lee Smith and Larry Walker get in.

[shilala]

Originally Posted by icehog3

I am not sure, Scott....how do you explain 6 years of Mark McGwire? He wasn't even accused of using true anabolics, just prohormoes. Maybe the writers just don't like the guy?

I sure don't have the answer, Tom. I have a number of guesses, is all. Even those are conflicting.
McGwire is a good dude and I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. His play alone might not get it, but what he's done in the community and the way he handled the steroid allegations are a positive to me.
I think he's fallen in the "nobody is going to stick their neck out" category because his play makes it easy and he's stood alone. With Bonds and Clemens (and other great steroid players coming up for election) that's going to be tougher because their play has always been excellent. Add to that the swaying of public sentiment as I see it, and a juicer might get inducted.

I don't think people make a distinction between anabolics and prohormones, specifically. Probably because they don't know the difference. At least I don't. I'm not sure if the distinction helps McGwire at all.
That makes me think to this point...
Players have used everything from amphetamines to cocaine to painkillers to booze to steroids to the drug du jour, Adderall, to get an edge. It's all the same to me and I can see why they'd do it. For some it's ego, some are trying to keep their job, some want to heal, some want to manage pain to play.

I'm as interested as anyone to see this play out. I'm hoping that the media has overdone the whole thing to death and it's made people not really care, or at least made them see that steroids do not make for a superman baseball player. Talent and practice does. Steroids just make a guy a bit more powerful, but so do a couple Vicodin when a guy has a sprained ankle.

[Islayphile]

Fred McGriff belongs in the HOF

2490 Hits

441 2B

24 3B

493 HR

1550 RBI

.284 BA

[Gophernut]

Originally Posted by jonumberone

Do Clemens, Bonds, Sosa, and the like ever see the hall?
Discuss!

I hope not, as Peter said, no for the obvious reasons. They have hof numbers, but how did they get to them?

Of the remaining players on the ballot, I would really like to see Jack Morris get in. One of the most dominant pitchers of his era. He also had one of the best, if the not THE best, pitching performances in game 7 of the 1991 World Series.

[mkarnold1]

Originally Posted by Gophernut

Of the remaining players on the ballot, I would really like to see Jack Morris get in. One of the most dominant pitchers of his era. He also had one of the best, if the not THE best, pitching performances in game 7 of the 1991 World Series.

, It is shocking to see Don Mattingly with such a low percentage after 12 years. At this point is seems unlikely that he gets in.

[Blak Smyth]

Don Mattingly



Surprised this hasn't happened yet.
I am unknowledgeable on many of these players listed.

[forgop]

Too bad Clemens wasn't able to pitch to get a 5 year extension like he hoped.

[STEVE S]

I would love to see Don Mattingly, finally get voted in.

[The Poet]

Originally Posted by pnoon

My choices are as follows:
Don Mattingly

Originally Posted by Blak Smyth

Don Mattingly

Originally Posted by mkarnold1

, It is shocking to see Don Mattingly with such a low percentage after 12 years. At this point is seems unlikely that he gets in.

Originally Posted by STEVE S

I would love to see Don Mattingly, finally get voted in.

I love Donnie Baseball. He's not only a major reason I'm a baseball fan now, he's the SOLE (soul??) reason I became a Yankee fan. I would love to see him get voted into the Hall.

I don't see it happening, however, unless he makes it as a manager twenty years from now.

[kelmac07]

Kenny Lofton on the ballot...he doesn't have the numbers to support an induction, but he gets my vote.

[dave]

Didn't read responses after OP so as not to affect my list:

Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Don Mattingly
The only three that jump out at me. No fan of the first two, but seems to me that cheaters or not, I put them in. I can't plink and plunk individuals out of an entire era. Some didn't cheat, but I believe that most did.
I admit, though, that I gave up on baseball in the 94 strike and never looked back. So, I'm no longer a fan and certainly not knowledgeable enough to entrust with a vote.

[jonumberone]

I thought there would more discussion on this, actually I thought there would be much more vitriol aimed at the steroids players.

My ballot would look like this:

Craig Biggio
Don Mattingly
Jack Morris
Tim Raines

I think in time some of the steroids players will get in.
IMO, Bonds and Clemens are hall of famer's without steroids.
Sosa, Palmeiro and Mcgwire are a product of steroids.
That's how I see it anyways.

[icehog3]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Scott, lots of good sense there.

For the record, anabolic steroids are illegal without a prescription, whereas prohormones are legal to sell, just not allowed for use by MLB. (I should say, legal at the time of sale, they are often made illegal after some time on the market, and usually make one small change and reappear again, legallly, with a new formula).

[The Poet]

If we're talking legality, it behooves us to define it in baseball terms as well as purely legal ones. The careers of those either accused or confessed users of PEDs occurred during a period where their use was frowned upon and condemned by MLB, and was considered "cheating" by the fans, but when it WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY BANNED BY BASEBALL RULES. That may seem nit-picking, but it does proffer the excuse (valid or not) that a player cannot be banned from the HoF for cheating if he did not actually break the rules.

I'm not saying I want guys like Bonds, Sosa, Clemens, etc. in the Hall, or even that I'd have no problem were they elected. Still, I need confess I'd have no "legal" leg to stand upon, so could not logically justify a complaint.

[mahtofire14]

I would go with

Bagwell
Biggio
Jack Morris
Lee Smith

Morris deserves it. Pitched one of the best pitching performance in baseball history, in the most important game of the year. Also has the career stats.

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by The Poet

If we're talking legality, it behooves us to define it in baseball terms as well as purely legal ones. The careers of those either accused or confessed users of PEDs occurred during a period where their use was frowned upon and condemned by MLB, and was considered "cheating" by the fans, but when it WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY BANNED BY BASEBALL RULES. That may seem nit-picking, but it does proffer the excuse (valid or not) that a player cannot be banned from the HoF for cheating if he did not actually break the rules.

Absolutely true in the case of Mark McGwire and the substance androstenedione.