OT: Baseball HOF voting. How do people feel about Biggio, Bagwell, and Piazza?
Today at 2pm there will be an announcement on the baseball HOF voting. I am assuming that Bonds, Sammy, Clemens and co. will not be getting in on the first ballot and, quite frankly, not sure if they will ever get in. Supposedly, however, based on the prelim poling, no one will be getting in, which I find absurd. Biggio should get in on the first ballot. Some goober voters, who instead of focusing on a potential inductee's accomplishments are nit picking diminutive negatives to vote against a candidate, argue that Biggio's hits are not that impressive because he played so long. Such writers should have their voting privileges revoked. As for Piazza and Bagwell, IMHO, both are no-brainer HOFers on numbers alone. Some writers, however, "suspect" that (just because they were big guys, with acne, that happened to play in the steroid era) Piazza and Bagwell used and that is why they did not vote for them. Those writers should have their voting privilege revoked as well, imo. You want to penalize people who were caught with their hands in the PED jar, fine, but to penalize someone on the mere suspicion, just because they happened to have a physique similar to Bonds, Clemes, etc., GTFOH. As for Bagwell, his career/injury trajectory actually shows anything but PED use. As he got older he became more injury prone, as any athlete would, and, consequently, spent a lot of time on IR. You look at his career numbers and they followef a natural trajectory/curve. His numbers started tapering off, whereas the proven PEDers had their numbers baloon, or at least remain at a high level. Anyway, I can writer on and on about this but would like to hear other thoughts.
PS I am also curious what people think about Clemens and Bonds, in particular. Will people be willing to give them a pass, eventually? I heard a clip this morning on ESPN - don't remember the reporter but he was from the older generation/guard of Peter Gammons and the like - and he said that he did vote for them because they were simply the best hitter/pitcher (respectively) that he has seen play and that he is "not a scientist and cannot determine how much of an advantage the steroids gave them" and feels that many more players "doped" than the names known and that therefore he is voting them in simply based on their accomplishments.
January 9th, 2013 at 12:52 PM ^
The fact that Morris earned more wins than any pitcher in the 1980s speaks to his dominance. So does the fact that he was an ace pitcher on three different World Series winners ('84 Tigers, '91 Twins, '92 Blue Jays) and the fact that he made 14 opening day starts (tied for second all-time with Steve Carlton, Randy Johnson, Walter Johnson and Cy Young, behind Tom Seaver's 16). Voters have not yet adjusted to starting pitchers in the DH-era of the American League (it was introduced in 1972), which helps explain Morris' 3.90 ERA. But Sports Illustrated's Tom Verducci researched a piece this winter and noted several things about Morris, including that in 50 seasons of the 162-game schedule (going back even before the DH), only two pitchers exceeded Morris working eight or more innings in 248 starts: Jim Palmer and Bert Blyleven. As Verducci notes, Morris worked eight or more innings in 52 percent of his starts over 14 seasons. That is dominant, Hall of Fame stuff.
January 9th, 2013 at 4:25 PM ^
The 80s is an arbitrary delimiter and wins are a poor way to evaluate a pitcher.
Pitchers can control how many guys they strike out, and how many walks and homers they allow. Anything else depends on the defense and the offense, which the pitcher doesn't help hardly at all (if you're in the NL, you can help your cause; pitchers do play defense but rarely get chances to make plays) - and Morris played with two real Hall-Worthy-guys in Trammel and Whitaker. That's a lot more help than, say, Dave Stieb had.
You want to know how good a pitcher was? Look at his K%, his W% and HR% relative to his competition. (Hint: Morris doesn't come out looking very good.)
You want a narrative-driven evaluation? Look at the Cy Young voting. Morris was usually not thought to be the best pitcher on his own team, much less one of the best around.
Morris was a pretty good pitcher who almost never got hurt and pitched on some really good teams. That combination maximizes his win totals but doesn't make him as good, or even close to it, as Blyleven (or really Stieb, or Saberhagen, or quite a few others).
Game Seven was really quite something though.
January 9th, 2013 at 12:54 PM ^
Along with Cal Ripken and Robin Yount -- both Hall of Famers -- Trammell was at the forefront of changing shortstop from a good-glove, light-stick position to one that could be productive offensively. His offensive numbers were far better in every facet than those of Ozzie Smith, and his defense was on par (though he wasn't as flashy) ... yet Ozzie sailed into Cooperstown on his first ballot and Trammell is on his 12th ballot with just 36 percent of the vote last year? I'm not alone in thinking this is a crime
January 9th, 2013 at 4:28 PM ^
... not that Trammell was a slouch, but Smith was better and flashier. Just as Trammell left most other teams in the dust on D, Smith left him and everyone else there too.
That said, I agree that Trammell is a HoF - he's one of the 8-10 best SS ever to play the game. Smith is too, because his much better D balances out his much weaker stick.
January 9th, 2013 at 12:54 PM ^
Caveat: Despite growing up with Cubs season ticket holders I have been an Astros fan my whole life. When I started rooting for the Astros Biggio was a catcher and Bagwell wasn't on the team. That said...
There is no possible way Biggio is not a Hall of Famer. He came into the league as a catcher then moved to second base where he won four gold gloves and was quite possibly the best player in the NL for several years in the 90s. He is one of the best lead-off hitters in MLB history and his game changed as he aged. He knocked in a lot of runs for a lead-off guy, had 50 SB seasons, had 25+ HR seasons, could hit 50 doubles, and went a whole season without grounding into a double play. And, as others have said, he spent about half of his career in the Astrodome. The things he has done as a second basemen, taken together, can't be matched by many players. And there is zero chance he was on PEDs.
I also think Bagwell should be in, and I don't buy the argument that he used PEDs. He spoke out against people using and commented about how obvious it was sometimes. If you don't think his numbers are good enough even with the Astrodome argument, OK, but I think PED argument here is ridiculous.
I know Bags isn't getting in this year and as much as I want Biggio to be in on the first ballot, it would be really cool to see them get in together. The Astros don't have any player in the Hall that they can call their own and these two represented the Astros for two decades in a way that will be difficult to duplicate in the future. I'm hoping to see it.
On a side note, what is with the fascination of people being "First Ballot" Hall of Famers or not deserving that? Their numbers aren't changing from year to year. They are either good enough or they aren't. Why would you change your mind from year to year?
January 9th, 2013 at 12:58 PM ^
1) I hate baseball due to all the agony being an Astros fan has caused me.
2) Biggio and Bagwell should definitely be voted in, especially Biggio.
January 9th, 2013 at 1:39 PM ^
Here is the comprehensive listing of who is on the ballot, along with the Bill James HOF monitor numbers, courtesy of Baseball-Reference.com - http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_2013.shtml
Among the players with multiple years on the ballot:
| Rank | Years on Ballot | %vote | |
| 1 | Jack Morris | 14th | 66.70% |
| 2 | Jeff Bagwell | 3rd | 56.00% |
| 3 | Lee Smith | 11th | 50.60% |
| 4 | Tim Raines | 6th | 48.70% |
| 5 | Alan Trammell | 12th | 36.80% |
| 6 | Edgar Martinez | 4th | 36.50% |
| 7 | Fred McGriff | 4th | 23.90% |
| 8 | Larry Walker | 3rd | 22.90% |
| 9 | Mark McGwire | 7th | 19.50% |
| 10 | Don Mattingly | 13th | 17.80% |
| 11 | Dale Murphy | 15th | 14.50% |
| 12 | Rafael Palmeiro | 3rd | 12.60% |
| 13 | Bernie Williams | 2nd | 9.60% |
Presumably, the "% Vote" is the highest total in that time. The site doesn't really specify. However, based on the currently Bill James Career Standards projected numbers (i.e., how does a career match with typical careers of current members of the hall), the most hall-worthy among these would be Larry Walker, Jeff Bagwell, and Rafael Palmeiro.
As for the OP's question, looking at these:
| G | AB | R | H | HR | RBI | SB | BB | BA | |
| Jeff Bagwell | 2150 | 7797 | 1517 | 2314 | 449 | 1529 | 202 | 1401 | 0.297 |
| Mike Piazza | 1912 | 6911 | 1048 | 2127 | 427 | 1335 | 17 | 759 | 0.308 |
| Craig Biggio | 2850 | 10876 | 1844 | 3060 | 291 | 1175 | 414 | 1160 | 0.281 |
I would have to say all three have a case. Definitely, Piazza and Bagwell were great offensive threats and Biggio was one of the most productive second basemen on the defensive side of the ball (consistently in the top 5 in putouts and assists in the NL), not to mention being in the top 5 in fielding percentage several times as well. All three were solid players.
January 9th, 2013 at 1:02 PM ^
My problem with the HOF is this: I think that it is done wrong. On one hand, people like Curt Schilling should be in since they were very memorable players who were good players. On the other hand, Jack Morris has more ink spilled over him than he deserves. There has to be a way to put in both.
If it were me, I would have three parts: 1) A Museum (like it currently has) 2) A hall of Fame; 3) a hall of greats. The hall of fame would allow many more people in, inlcuding those who have shamed the game-- Bonds, Rose, etc., and TELL THEIR STORY. It would explain that Pete Rose gambled on baseball, that Bonds had PED suspiscions, ect. It would be a museum remembering the best players, regaurdless of whether or not they were morally acceptable or not. The Hall of Greats would be only the greatest to play their position. Examples from today who seem to be good candidates: Pujols, Cabrera, maybe Verlander with a few more seasons of sheer dominance, Jeter, maybe King Felix (with more years), Mariano... and thats about it. The elite of the elite, standards so high that maybe 10 or 12 teams could be filled out in all of baseball history. I think this is a far better way of remembering the game, celebrating its true greats, and recognizing the social signifigance of its actions, right or wrong. It would be a place rememebring the three things baseball is known for: great moments, the way it has ingrained itself into the fabric of the american culture, and the idols it produces. No kid grows up wanting to be the next Jack Morris.
January 9th, 2013 at 1:06 PM ^
to let them all in, or none of them. I think they should all be in.
January 9th, 2013 at 1:14 PM ^
January 9th, 2013 at 1:24 PM ^
January 9th, 2013 at 1:21 PM ^
They all should be in without a doubt. The HoF is already a huge sham with the lol BBWoA voting on it (I mean, Pat Caputo is a voter). Morris shouldn't even sniff the HoF but baseball writers gonna baseball writers
January 9th, 2013 at 2:01 PM ^
Both should get in, its rediclous to not let them in. They are 2 of the best players i ever watched play. I'm sure they both roided but if u dont let them in no one should ever get in the HOF from here on out. I mean who's to say if any current players are juicing if u told me Cabreara or Pujols were roiding i wouldn't be surprised but if they weren't i'd believe that also. Its a joke.
January 9th, 2013 at 2:05 PM ^
Prognosticators got it right: nobody elected. Not surprising.
January 9th, 2013 at 2:07 PM ^
What about that dude who pitched a no-hitter while on acid. Is he permanently disqualified from the Hall of Fame?
In my eyes, a feat like that should automatically put you in the Hall.
January 9th, 2013 at 2:09 PM ^
No one was elected. For Morris fans, this was probably his last best hope (until the Vet committees). Next year's his last chance and the competition is even worse then.
January 9th, 2013 at 2:18 PM ^
Absolute joke that the writers couldn't vote in one person. Next year's ballot is going to be packed, which makes it even harder for a player to break in.
January 9th, 2013 at 2:40 PM ^
Regarding the three candidates the OP asked about (please understand, I believe the HOF is a combination of looking at stats but also an eyeball test)
1) Biggio - should be in. He would have been a top secondbaseman in any era and would have competed in any era.
2) Bagwell - I'm not as convinced he automatically should be in. Injuries played a big roll in his career. Frankly, his performance in the post season is not HOF worthy and I think that should count for something. Are you really one of the best if you put up big numbers all year only to hit under .200 multiple time in the playoffs while your team get's knocked out in the first round repeatedly?
3) Piazza - probably should be in. His offense at his position is matched by very few. His defense, unfortunately, was also not match by many. That said, he came up big for his teams in the playoffs and put up solid numbers over a long (for a catcher) career.
January 9th, 2013 at 3:33 PM ^
Granted, you would think a Hall of Fame hitter could...well...hit.
January 9th, 2013 at 3:26 PM ^
It's always people who weren't good enough to play a sport who are the hardest on those who actually did. Steroids weren't against the rules for most of the "steroid era," and the pitchers were taking them, too.
Ever wonder why Fernando Rodney used to hit triple digits on the "gun," but has settled nicely into a low-to-mid 90's fastball?
The bottom line: the playing field was level. Those who dominated the steroid era have just as much right to be in the Hall of Fame as those who dominated any other era.
January 9th, 2013 at 4:14 PM ^
Grantland's Jonah Keri, who's probably the best bball writer working today, offers his thoughts. In brief:
-Excluding those suspected of steroids is irrational (or at least hypocritical) unless writers are willing to campaign for admitted amphetemine users (he names Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Schmidt) to be retroactively excluded from the Hall on the basis of "foreign performance enhancing substance).
-The "not on the first ballot" voters are odious trolls.
-Voters are largely innumerate, but that may be going away as more Baseball Prospectus types get the vote.
-Voters who no longer cover baseball should lose their votes.
-A long stretch where he explains why he thinks Morris's case is tendentious, while arguing that Trammel and Whitacker have gotten screwed.
-And interestingly, not having a living inductee really screws the Hall of Fame itself as well as Cooperstown, as induction day is, not surprisingly, its biggest revenue day.
http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/47091/the-fallacy-…
January 9th, 2013 at 4:56 PM ^
As a big Mets fan, the fact that Mike Piazza is not a first ballot HOF'er is an absolute disgrace. He is the best offensive catcher in MLB history. His biggest sin is being suspected (by brilliant minds like Murray Chass) of having used PEDs. The "proof"? Acne on his back or backne, in the parlance of our times, and being selected in the 62nd round of the MLB draft.
The BBWA had no problem supporting players during the steroid era and now has no problem condemning them all even with limited to no tangible evidence.
January 9th, 2013 at 5:16 PM ^
is a first ballot Hall of Famer. End of discussion. Look at the numbers. I'll put this to the true baseball stat fanatics - is there another member of the 3,000 hit club (other than Rose) who wasn't a first ballot Hall of Famer? The fact that these writers can't separate the steroid issue from the other eligible players is ridiculous.
January 9th, 2013 at 6:04 PM ^
Ryne Sandberg is in so I don't take it too seriously