OT: Johnson, Pedro, Smoltz & Biggio Elected To Hall Of Fame

UN-Owen · Post #1 » by **UN-Owen** » Tue Jan 6, 2015 8:07 pm

Randy Johnson = 97.3% of the votes

Pedro Martinez = 91.1%

John Smoltz = 82.9%

Craig Biggio = 82.7%

Kinda surprised Mike Piazza didn't get in as well, garnering only 69.9% of the votes (75% is needed for induction)

Other players of note:

Jeff Bagwell = 55.7%

Tim Raines = 55%

Curt Schilling = 39.2%

Roger Clemens = 37.5%

Barry Bonds = 36.8%

Mark McGwire = 10%

Sammy Sosa = 6.6%

Don Mattingly = 9.1% (final year of eligibility)

Carlos Delgado = 3.8% (failed to reach the minimum number of votes to remain on the ballot)

satyr9 · Post #2 » by **satyr9** » Tue Jan 6, 2015 10:18 pm

This is well covered ground at this point, but the one that just blows my mind is Bagwell. When there's legitimate evidence to make a case for keeping Bonds and Clemens out (and assorted others), summarily punishing Bagwell without similar evidence is astounding.

Idontknowurlife · Post #3 » by **Idontknowurlife** » Wed Jan 7, 2015 2:17 am

How in the world is Tim Raines still not in?

Fairview4Life · Post #4 » by **Fairview4Life** » Wed Jan 7, 2015 2:36 pm

Idontknowurlife wrote:How in the world is Tim Raines still not in?

BBWAA voting is like a box of chocolates: some voters are pretty stupid.

Randle McMurphy · Post #5 » by **Randle McMurphy** » Wed Jan 7, 2015 8:36 pm

satyr9 wrote:This is well covered ground at this point, but the one that just blows my mind is Bagwell. When there's legitimate evidence to make a case for keeping Bonds and Clemens out (and assorted others), summarily punishing Bagwell without similar evidence is astounding.

I have a whole number of issues with the HOF voting process, but it's hard to understand why the four that got elected are presumed innocent of PEDs while guys like Bagwell/Piazza aren't.

Fairview4Life · Post #6 » by **Fairview4Life** » Wed Jan 7, 2015 10:43 pm

Well, Pedro weighs about 37 pounds and didn't pitch until he was 40, so that helped his case.

Randle McMurphy · Post #7 » by **Randle McMurphy** » Wed Jan 7, 2015 10:48 pm

Fairview4Life wrote:Well, Pedro weighs about 37 pounds and didn't pitch until he was 40, so that helped his case.

And he's probably the only one of those four with what could be said to be a "normal" aging curve. RJ, for instance, peaked in his mid 30s and was a monster into his 40s.

Nights King · Post #8 » by **Nights King** » Thu Jan 8, 2015 2:28 am

Keith is quite mild in his criticism here, if i had my way the Hall of Fame would be razed to the ground, it honestly shocks me to see all these smart baseball fans not only care about it but act like its even worth reforming
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOPgKk8xLfQ[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tWraTcEwSw[/youtube]

UN-Owen · Post #9 » by **UN-Owen** » Thu Jan 8, 2015 3:55 am

Randle McMurphy wrote:
satyr9 wrote:This is well covered ground at this point, but the one that just blows my mind is Bagwell. When there's legitimate evidence to make a case for keeping Bonds and Clemens out (and assorted others), summarily punishing Bagwell without similar evidence is astounding.

I have a whole number of issues with the HOF voting process, but it's hard to understand why the four that got elected are presumed innocent of PEDs while guys like Bagwell/Piazza aren't.

Yeah, Biggio set his career high in homeruns at the age of 38, and then set a new career high the following year at the age of 39

Seems supsicious

Post #10 » by **Schad** » Thu Jan 8, 2015 3:59 am

Fairview4Life wrote:
Idontknowurlife wrote:How in the world is Tim Raines still not in?

BBWAA voting is like a box of chocolates: some voters are pretty stupid.

Plus, there are so many viable candidates that you're getting a lot of vote-splitting. Some guys vote for the full ten, but deign to cross the PED no-fly-zone and include the likes of Bonds/Clemens, pushing Raines and other deserving players off their ballots; others limit themselves to a maximum of 4 or 5, because some voters are pretty stupid and haughty dipshits.

Edit: on Biggio breaking his career HR mark at 39, not particularly. From 1995-2003, he hit 15-22 HRs in all but two seasons (which happened to be the two where he had injuries). Add that Minute Maid's wacky dimensions are very generous to line drives down the lines and you can easily get the sort of variability that led him to hit 19 HRs at home that year, versus just 7 on the road.

Skin Blues · Post #11 » by **Skin Blues** » Thu Jan 8, 2015 4:18 am

The only time he mentions Schilling is when he says it was mass insanity that caused him to have more votes than Sheffield. Hmmm... I wonder why. He's letting his personal disdain for Schilling overtake logic. If it wasn't clear enough what "side" he was on, he also brings up Keith Law's fake Old Hoss Radbourn Twitter account. So he's as bad as the BBWAA guys he's deriding.

He also spent way too much time focusing on Herman Long, who for his career had a 93 wRC+. That's the same as Yunel Escobar, and it accounts for run scoring context. The people who were wrong on Herman Long were the voters before the BBWAA got a chance to straighten things out.

satyr9 · Post #12 » by **satyr9** » Thu Jan 8, 2015 1:42 pm

UN-Owen wrote:
Randle McMurphy wrote:
satyr9 wrote:This is well covered ground at this point, but the one that just blows my mind is Bagwell. When there's legitimate evidence to make a case for keeping Bonds and Clemens out (and assorted others), summarily punishing Bagwell without similar evidence is astounding.

I have a whole number of issues with the HOF voting process, but it's hard to understand why the four that got elected are presumed innocent of PEDs while guys like Bagwell/Piazza aren't.

Yeah, Biggio set his career high in homeruns at the age of 38, and then set a new career high the following year at the age of 39

Seems supsicious

Rather than worry about suspicions, I cannot believe journalists—or at least former journalists—can be so cavalier with the distinction between a fact and an opinion. Suspicions about Bonds' and Clemens' careers are supported by facts. Perhaps not enough for some sort of legal standard, but enough that I'm fine with a subjective body like the HOF voters choosing to exclude them. I don't agree with the exclusion (despite being vehemently opposed to PEDs use I think it's best to include the players who used and their history in Baseball's history), but excluding them is a defensible judgment.

When the same journalists go several steps further and rely solely on personal bias to pick and choose who was taking what, without any preponderance of evidence, it's a problem and a professional failure. It goes against every ethic they have/had as journalists. I think several current Baseball writers putting the votes down to a casual ignorance of the modern game belittles the problem. There are professional standards in that community and the people voting for the Baseball Hall of Fame fall woefully short of those standards every year. It's a disgrace.

cram · Post #13 » by **cram** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 12:10 am

Is it crazy that Delgado didn't get more votes? I figured he was borderline to get into the HOF, not get kicked off the ballot after the first year.

Tyrone Slothrop · Post #14 » by **Tyrone Slothrop** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 4:58 am

The majority of the BBWAA actually think they are an important part of baseball. That pretty much sums up the problem.

SharoneWright · Post #15 » by **SharoneWright** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 6:57 am

cram wrote:Is it crazy that Delgado didn't get more votes? I figured he was borderline to get into the HOF, not get kicked off the ballot after the first year.

Stark: "Delgado deserves apology"
http://espn.go.com/blog/jayson-stark/po ... hof-voting