BBF Progressive HoF Election: 2010

[PVNICK]

Why all the love for Fred McGriff and none for John Olerud?

It's a good question. Not that McGriff does not merit love more that Olerud flies under the radar. To me Hernandez > Olerud and the line is somewhere between them. I decided that some time ago and have not bothered to re-examine my position on Olerud. Olerud's 2003 and 1998 were monster seasons. The problem with Olerud as I see it is a lack of traditional # 2 seasons >100r topping out at 109 and 4 of 100 RBI topping at 107, 5 20 HR seasons topping @ 24 and ohther than the two seasions mentioned over .350 he tops .300 twice more .302 and .300. Same with SPct .490 is the best after 1993 and 1998. His greatness such as it is lies in his truly splendid glove and OBP where he was over .400 6 times with another 3 in the .390s. So there you have it, the subtle superstar.

[DoubleX]

There's nothing wrong with a "wait and see" approach, but your post does suggest you'll be voting for no players from the 1990's and 2000's except those in the Bonds/Clemens stratosphere. That's fine, but I'm curious exactly how many other players that elite swath cuts below besides Bonds and Clemens. Maddux? Anyone else? How elite does someone have to be for PED usage (suspected or proven) to not negate their Hall argument in your opinion?

Just curious. Incidentally, do your suspicions prevent you from voting for players not perceived to be power hitters during this era - Biggio for example - or pitchers (Glavine, Pedro, RJ, Moose, Smoltz, etc.)?

It's a fair question, and I regret that I don't have a clear cut answer. It's really a case by case assessment for me, considering all factors. jjpm called me a hypocrite for voting for McGriff, but McGriff gets my support because his dominance came just before the "juiced era" started. Now I realize the "juiced era" is a subjective term, but there seems to be a pretty clear jump in offensive production starting in the mid 90s around the time of the strike. So for me, I'm paying extra scrutiny to players whose peaks were from the mid 90s-early 00s, during the period where the juiced era was in full swing.

I also think, and I don't blame ballplayers for this because as I said, it was ingrained in the culture, that a very large percentage of players used PEDs in some form for some period of time. I think it just got to the point where it was considered part of the occupation. As such, I believe there's much to still be learned from that era, and thus I would like some more time to see what other information arises.

Getting back to judging players on a case by case basis. There will be several players I will vote for based on the circumstances. Circumstances will include dominance, overall abilities, and fair or not, rumors and suspicious circumstances. There will be several players I will vote for. But some players, usually players with spectacular peaks during the height of the juiced era who then had quick (and perhaps injury riddled) declines when testing was implemented, will cause me some pause. I wouldn't want to elect someone and then find out a year later that he juiced for over a decade (though again, some players were just so good, IMO, that they can overcome the juice use, but I just want to have more information available).

[BigRon]

Yikes- one of my smallest ballots in a long time!

Jeff Bagwell
Mark McGwire
Dave Parker
Willie Randolph
Dave Stieb

EMartinez is still a couple of ballots away. Palmeiro, unfortunately, will get my vote in a few years. I can only vote on on field performance, but Palmeiro's career looks like a super candidate for PED usage to me.

Dwight Evans was a really good player for a looooonngg time, but I just can't quite bring myself to vote for him.

[Bigfoot 88]

Rafael Palmeiro
Larry Walker
Mark McGwire
Edgar Martinez
David Cone
Kevin Brown
Jeff Bagwell

[Ace Venom]

Hey man, why don't we just kick out and exclude all the players who played in the juiced era? I mean, even the ones who didn't use steroids still played with guys who did, which means they still benefited from them. It only makes sense to do such a thing. We must be cautious.

Considering we've elected people who did amphetamines, testosterone and cocaine, we've already thrown caution to the window. Discriminating against steroids and/or HGH, but not the rest seems a bit too counterproductive and is an arbitrary standard.

[Cowtipper]

Considering we've elected people who did amphetamines, testosterone and cocaine, we've already thrown caution to the window. Discriminating against steroids and/or HGH, but not the rest seems a bit too counterproductive and is an arbitrary standard.

I was being sarcastic.

[Ace Venom]

I was being sarcastic.

My point still stands. Stimulants also function as PEDs and I've heard claims that Pete Rose did a few greenies in his time. If that's the case, where's the fuss over Rose breaking Cobb's record? We didn't elect Rose because the guy was never on the ballot, but without the gambling situation, Rose would have sailed in without trouble. We've elected people that used greenies as well as people who used cocaine. We've thus already opened the door to the Progressive Hall to PED users. While PEDs aren't created equal, we're still talking about illegal drugs. We're looking at people who have Hall of Fame numbers, but are holding them to a different standard that we did with users of amphetamines. If we have room for the pill poppers, then why keep McGwire and Palmeiro out? That's my point. I just don't see the problem.

[nerfan]

It's a good question. Not that McGriff does not merit love more that Olerud flies under the radar. To me Hernandez > Olerud and the line is somewhere between them. I decided that some time ago and have not bothered to re-examine my position on Olerud. Olerud's 2003 and 1998 were monster seasons. The problem with Olerud as I see it is a lack of traditional # 2 seasons >100r topping out at 109 and 4 of 100 RBI topping at 107, 5 20 HR seasons topping @ 24 and ohther than the two seasions mentioned over .350 he tops .300 twice more .302 and .300. Same with SPct .490 is the best after 1993 and 1998. His greatness such as it is lies in his truly splendid glove and OBP where he was over .400 6 times with another 3 in the .390s. So there you have it, the subtle superstar.

McGriff had a more concentrated peak, Olerud's "peak" was more spread out. He was a superstar in a couple seasons and a plain old star in the rest. Olerud contributed more overall value, and he's juuuust over the line in my book. He's an example of the Power > OBP bias.

[Ace Venom]

This election is closed. We elected Jeff Bagwell in his first year of eligibility.