Here's a nice story on how it could benefit the non-'roiders

http://bats.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/28/jack-morriss-moment-to-enter-hall-of-fame-is-here/

What is getting very blurry with all this is the question of who is and isn't a 'roider.

I don't remember Sosa being linked to the Mitchell Report.  His primary tie to the steroid issue is fan suspicion and his inability to understand or speak English in front of Congress.  But I don't think he's ever been directly linked, nor do I believe he ever admitted it.

Jeff Bagwell was never directly linked to steroid use, but there are a lot of suspicions, probably based on Ken Camaniti's admission.  I think that seriously affected the results of his vote.

Goold made a pretty good point in his story in today's P-D.  Get rid of the character and off-field criteria and elect players based on their performance on the field.  Then, if there are issues, put it on the player's plaque.  Shoeless Joe gets in the Hall, but his plaque includes a reference to the Black Sox Scandal.  Pete Rose gets in, but with reference to his lifetime ban for gambling.  The steroid guys get in, but with mention of their steroid use.  Given all the uncertainty, what Goold says makes a lot of sense.

Max wrote:

Here's a nice story on how it could benefit the non-'roiders

http://bats.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/28/jack-morriss-moment-to-enter-hall-of-fame-is-here/

Interesting story, but one of the things that bugs me about the HofF voters is this sanctimony toward first time eligibles. A guy is either a Hall of Famer, or he isn't. Jack Morris' stats haven't gotten any better since he retired. If you think Jack Morris belongs in the Hall of Fame, vote for him the first time he's on the ballot.
My ballot would have Bagwell, Schilling, Piazza and Biggio. I know there's always been a suspicion Bagwell did roids, but unlike the others there's never been a direct link. So I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and shame on me if I'm proven wrong later. For about a decade, he was the Houston Astros, when the Astros were formidable.
Schilling is a blowhard, and 216 wins isn't a lot, but the guy was nails when it mattered most. He's the Bob Gibson of his era when it came to winning big games.
Piazza is the best offensive catcher in the history of baseball. Good enough for me.
Biggio wound up with 3,000 hits. Automatic.

I have a hard time buying into the hall of fame.  I mean no matter how it is done it isnt going to be fair or perfect.  Nothing is.  Stats speak for themselfs.  I would just base it off of that and forget anything else.

artie_fufkin wrote:

APIAD wrote:

I have a hard time buying into the hall of fame.  I mean no matter how it is done it isnt going to be fair or perfect.  Nothing is.  Stats speak for themselfs.  I would just base it off of that and forget anything else.

I don't care what they base it on, at long as there's some consistency.
I've said all along the Pro Football Hall of Fame is the only one that gets it right. They have double murderer and a crackhead who likes to hire underage hookers in there, and none of it matters to the voters. All they care about it what happens on the field.

I agree.  I wouldnt mind them setting mile stones that place you in the hall of fame not matter what.  500 hrs should be one.  Of the players liste in the first post I would vote for all of them.  Raines and Smith are in the top 5 in saves and stolen bases.  If you are able to gather more numbers over the course of your career in a certain area then every other player except a couple how are you not a hall of famer?

"300 wins are the other two I think of off the top of my head."

By today's standards, 300 wins is the new 400 wins.  I'm not sure we'll ever see another pitcher get there.

Think of all the noise that was made when Maddux won at least 15 games for 15 seasons.  Winning 15 for 15 only gets you to 225.  300 is a ton.

Current active leaders are Jamie Moyer (who is only deemed active because he hasn't formally retired) with 269.  Pettitte has 245.  Then it drops to Halladay with 199, and he's 35. 

Looking at the active leaders list, about the only one who probably has a legitimate shot is Sabbathia who's at 191 at age 31, but even he had elbow issues at the end of this season.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/W_active.shtml

LOL that Brett Tomko is still on the "active" list.

forsberg_us wrote:

ESPN reporting that an AP survey of about 20% of the Hall of Fame voters indicates that Bonds, Clemens and Sosa will be well short of the requisite number of votes.

A couple of the local wags wrote columns this week indicating they would vote for Bonds and Clemens. The guy from the Boston Herald also votes for McGwire, so at least he's consistent, but the guy from the Boston Globe went with that "they were Hall of Famers before they touched drugs ..." rationale.

"Among voters who expressed an opinion, Bonds received 45 percent support, Clemens 43 percent and Sosa 18 percent.

Candidates need 75 percent for election."

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8695611/survey-shows-barry-bonds-roger-clemens-sammy-sosa-likely-miss-first-hall-fame-vote