My slant: I think Bonds, McGwire, Clemens, Manny Ramirez, even Sosa belong. But I respect now these veterans part of the review committees, current Hall members, who stand their ground and now have a say in it. My hope would be these veterans committees to be larger than 16. And stop rotating people in and out based on the group considered. This is how we have Harold Baines in the Hall. Nice career but ... Expand the ballot and expand the voting base and make it all ex-players. The execs and historians and broadcasters sprinkled in seem like damage control voices but shouldnt hold as much weight as "legit" Hall of Fame members.
This fully loaded class considered today will only have three at best added. From this group at least a half dozen deserve to go in. My heart leans into Valenzuela and Dale Murphy, who I admired stats and all. Garvey should be there. Maury Wills ... finally Hodges made it. Great conversation.
Rose? I am ambivalent.
Shoeless Joe: In.
This is why the Baseball Reliquary's Shrine of the Eternals makes so much sense.
Good job getting on that soapbox, Tom! Yes, agreed. It's troubling to think that any (most) of the players on this ballot won't be considered again for SIX years if they don't get enough votes, and then could bounced from the ballot for good. I've always had issues with the committees restricting the number of people any voter can name on their ballots, usually to three, meaning without consensus no one gets in.
The makeup of the group is interesting. A good group of ex-players but I'll be intrigued to see what impact the front office and media folks have.
Yes, the class is completely loaded. And each of these players has a legitimate HOF case.
You're right about Garvey and Wills. Bill Buckner has great stats, too.
The eye test/staying in your seat when this person was playing test has given way for advanced metrics, which somehow dings guys like Garvey. But when you're getting 2,600 career hits and MVP and ASG attention every year and batting .338 in the playoffs ... that screams HOF to me.
I agree Bonds shouldn't be punished for doing something that wasn't against the rules when he started doing it. Plus, Sheffield "unknowingly" used steriods and was mentioned in both the BALCO scandle and the Mitchell report, so he should be casting stones. I always say that I could take all the steroids, HGH, and whatever else, that has ever been made and might be able to hit 6 homers a season, just when my bat and the ball happened to colide. Bonds still had to have more talent then most major leaguers to do even half of what he did.
As for Rose, I don't agree with people who say that Rose should be in the Hall of Fame because betting on baseball is the same as taking steroids. If it were up to me, and of course it's not, he would never get in. He broke a long standing rule about betting on baseball, a rule that saw people given the same punishment he received. He knew what would happen to him if he were caught while he was doing it. Also, while steriods could affect the outcome of a game, betting on a game, especially from a coach, casts a shadow over every decision made in every game he coached. On top of all that was the fact that Rose kept lying about it. He never bet on sports, ok, he did but never on baseball. Ok, he did but never on my team. Ok, he did but he never bet on them to lose. Ok, but that bet never changed the way I managed. Sure Pete, what ever you say.
My slant: I think Bonds, McGwire, Clemens, Manny Ramirez, even Sosa belong. But I respect now these veterans part of the review committees, current Hall members, who stand their ground and now have a say in it. My hope would be these veterans committees to be larger than 16. And stop rotating people in and out based on the group considered. This is how we have Harold Baines in the Hall. Nice career but ... Expand the ballot and expand the voting base and make it all ex-players. The execs and historians and broadcasters sprinkled in seem like damage control voices but shouldnt hold as much weight as "legit" Hall of Fame members.
This fully loaded class considered today will only have three at best added. From this group at least a half dozen deserve to go in. My heart leans into Valenzuela and Dale Murphy, who I admired stats and all. Garvey should be there. Maury Wills ... finally Hodges made it. Great conversation.
Rose? I am ambivalent.
Shoeless Joe: In.
This is why the Baseball Reliquary's Shrine of the Eternals makes so much sense.
(Exit soapbox)
Good job getting on that soapbox, Tom! Yes, agreed. It's troubling to think that any (most) of the players on this ballot won't be considered again for SIX years if they don't get enough votes, and then could bounced from the ballot for good. I've always had issues with the committees restricting the number of people any voter can name on their ballots, usually to three, meaning without consensus no one gets in.
The makeup of the group is interesting. A good group of ex-players but I'll be intrigued to see what impact the front office and media folks have.
Yes, the class is completely loaded. And each of these players has a legitimate HOF case.
You're right about Garvey and Wills. Bill Buckner has great stats, too.
The eye test/staying in your seat when this person was playing test has given way for advanced metrics, which somehow dings guys like Garvey. But when you're getting 2,600 career hits and MVP and ASG attention every year and batting .338 in the playoffs ... that screams HOF to me.
The larger the voting base the better the outcome. Too much influence is given to those in small groups with their agendas.
100%
I agree Bonds shouldn't be punished for doing something that wasn't against the rules when he started doing it. Plus, Sheffield "unknowingly" used steriods and was mentioned in both the BALCO scandle and the Mitchell report, so he should be casting stones. I always say that I could take all the steroids, HGH, and whatever else, that has ever been made and might be able to hit 6 homers a season, just when my bat and the ball happened to colide. Bonds still had to have more talent then most major leaguers to do even half of what he did.
As for Rose, I don't agree with people who say that Rose should be in the Hall of Fame because betting on baseball is the same as taking steroids. If it were up to me, and of course it's not, he would never get in. He broke a long standing rule about betting on baseball, a rule that saw people given the same punishment he received. He knew what would happen to him if he were caught while he was doing it. Also, while steriods could affect the outcome of a game, betting on a game, especially from a coach, casts a shadow over every decision made in every game he coached. On top of all that was the fact that Rose kept lying about it. He never bet on sports, ok, he did but never on baseball. Ok, he did but never on my team. Ok, he did but he never bet on them to lose. Ok, but that bet never changed the way I managed. Sure Pete, what ever you say.
Thoughtful response, Chris.
I agree that it's not fair to equate betting with steroids. Different situations. There aren't signs up in clubhouses warning players about PEDs.
Pete's shifting accounts and credibility issues certainly didn't help him. What a shame.