Will This Generation Be Underrepresented?

[AstrosFan]

With Mark McGwire struggling to gain any support, and with the evidence against other superstar players, will this generation have a historically low amount of players elected to the Hall of Fame? Think of the players that have or had a good shot at the Hall if the numbers were taken at face value, then just knock them off, because they are suspected of steroid use or have been proven guilty.

Mark McGwire
Sammy Sosa
Barry Bonds
Gary Sheffield
Rafael Palmeiro
Roger Clemens

I realize this doesn't seem like a lot, but how many HOFers does a typical generation generate? 20-25, I would imagine. Remove six of those, and you're removing 24-30% of the players. That seems pretty significant to me.

[dgarza]

With Mark McGwire struggling to gain any support, and with the evidence against other superstar players, will this generation have a historically low amount of players elected to the Hall of Fame? Think of the players that have or had a good shot at the Hall if the numbers were taken at face value, then just knock them off, because they are suspected of steroid use or have been proven guilty.

Mark McGwire
Sammy Sosa
Barry Bonds
Gary Sheffield
Rafael Palmeiro
Roger Clemens

I realize this doesn't seem like a lot, but how many HOFers does a typical generation generate? 20-25, I would imagine. Remove six of those, and you're removing 24-30% of the players. That seems pretty significant to me.

You may be underestimating how forgiving or emotionally removed future generations are likely to be. Here's to the VC!

[Windy City Fan]

I think Bonds and Clemens will get in. Their careers are too big to ignore. Both of them sealed up their place in Cooperstown long before they got on the juice.

As to Sammy, McGwire, and Palmeiro, I think you can legitimately argue that they are not HOF caliber players if they played clean.

Sheffield is an interesting case. He admitted to using, but said it was only briefly and unknowingly. By the numbers he's a clear Hall of Famer, but he's never been Mr. Personality, so I could see him being punished for his association with steriods. Personally, I wouldn't mind if Sheffield made it in. I do think it would be a major mistake and a black eye to baseball if McGwire, Sosa, or Palmerio are ever inducted.

[Skin & Bones]

I think Bonds and Clemens will get in. Their careers are too big to ignore. Both of them sealed up their place in Cooperstown long before they got on the juice.

As to Sammy, McGwire, and Palmeiro, I think you can legitimately argue that they are not HOF caliber players if they played clean.

Sheffield is an interesting case. He admitted to using, but said it was only briefly and unknowingly. By the numbers he's a clear Hall of Famer, but he's never been Mr. Personality, so I could see him being punished for his association with steriods. Personally, I wouldn't mind if Sheffield made it in. I do think it would be a major mistake and a black eye to baseball if McGwire, Sosa, or Palmerio are ever inducted.

This really doesn't make much sense. So because Sheffield admitted to using them briefly means he actually did? And it's ok for him to get in the Hall Of Fame, but not the others? (Two of which there's far less evidence on?)

For what it's worth, Game Of Shadows states Sheffield used steroids more then what he admitted to, and they also claim he knew what he was doing.

[rockin500]

This really doesn't make much sense. So because Sheffield admitted to using them briefly means he actually did? And it's ok for him to get in the Hall Of Fame, but not the others? (Two of which there's far less evidence on?)

For what it's worth, Game Of Shadows states Sheffield used steroids more then what he admitted to, and they also claim he knew what he was doing.

not to mention he's also on record for tanking it on purpose when he was with the brewers.

[dgarza]

I realize this doesn't seem like a lot, but how many HOFers does a typical generation generate? 20-25, I would imagine. Remove six of those, and you're removing 24-30% of the players. That seems pretty significant to me.

Based on the assumption that a "generation" is about 10 years, I can count 20 solid HOF players who debuted from 1984-1993 other than those 6 you mentioned, plus a few others who have stong cases. I don't think there will be a shortage.

[Captain Cold Nose]

You may be underestimating how forgiving or emotionally removed future generations are likely to be. Here's to the VC!

Based on what happened in this year's regular VC election, we're going to get a flood, and I don't mean Curt, of players the next few years. If they don't change things for the umpteenth time before this generation comes up to VC ballot, that is.

I do think there is danger of the players from this era to be overrepresented, especially compared to the past generation where the numbers have been completely dwarfed. Since only a small amount of the players who used steroids have received the lion's (or blue whale's) share of scrutiny and scorn, the numbers could well be taken at face value by both voting bodies.

[Ubiquitous]

It is virtually impossible for this generation of players to be over represented. There are simply too many players in this generation. 26 to 30 teams with a 25 man roster equals a player pool in the thousands. If players like Garret Anderson and Jeff Weaver get in then we can say there are too many players going in.

I believe we looked at this before and to get a % of players inducted similar to other generations requires the hall to induct something like 80 players from this generation. That isn't going to happen so in terms of % compared to other eras it is almost guaranteed that this era will be under represented.

[Captain Cold Nose]

It is virtually impossible for this generation of players to be over represented. There are simply too many players in this generation. 26 to 30 teams with a 25 man roster equals a player pool in the thousands. If players like Garret Anderson and Jeff Weaver get in then we can say there are too many players going in.

I believe we looked at this before and to get a % of players inducted similar to other generations requires the hall to induct something like 80 players from this generation. That isn't going to happen so in terms of % compared to other eras it is almost guaranteed that this era will be under represented.

If you're using that rationale, sure. But I'm looking at it in a different way, which is closer to your comment about Anderson and Jeff Weaver. If too much emphasis is placed on raw numbers compared to previous eras, then there could be a problem. It may not be likely, but time will tell if this era will be treated, especially by the VC, like the 20's and 30's were. Voting membership will be very crucial, as a small number of voters have seemingly been swayed by one or two powerful voices.

[Paul Wendt]

Based on what happened in this year's regular VC election, we're going to get a flood, and I don't mean Curt, of players the next few years. If they don't change things for the umpteenth time before this generation comes up to VC ballot, that is.

This year's regular VC election?
Do you mean last winter's latest election for "players" (regular=players)?
Or do you infer a flood of players from the flood of managers and executives elected this December?

The 2008 quintet was elected by true committees which meet in person? That system certainly does elect more people than vote-by-mail, but it is has been restored only for the non-player categories and for players with mlb debuts before 1943. For players with mlb debuts after 1942 the 2007 revision retains vote-by-mail and drops the scribes and mikemen (Spink and Frick honorees) from the electorate, in favor of the living HOF players alone.

I do think there is danger of the players from this era to be overrepresented, especially compared to the past generation where the numbers have been completely dwarfed. Since only a small amount of the players who used steroids have received the lion's (or blue whale's) share of scrutiny and scorn, the numbers could well be taken at face value by both voting bodies.

In the past there has been some relative over-rep of pitchers from times since 1880 when scoring was low or when complete games and wins were high. And some over-rep of other players from times when scoring was high.

The three most recent pitchers elected are Rollie Fingers, Goose Gossage, and Bruce Sutter. Tom Seaver is the most recent starting pitcher. That highlights something else, related to complete games and wins. Twenty years from now, will we call it a flood of relief pitchers? I guess not but wait and see.

[Captain Cold Nose]

This year's regular VC election?
Do you mean last winter's latest election for "players" (regular=players)?
Or do you infer a flood of players from the flood of managers and executives elected this December?

The 2008 quintet was elected by true committees which meet in person? That system certainly does elect more people than vote-by-mail, but it is has been restored only for the non-player categories and for players with mlb debuts before 1943. For players with mlb debuts after 1942 the 2007 revision retains vote-by-mail and drops the scribes and mikemen (Spink and Frick honorees) from the electorate, in favor of the living HOF players alone.



In the past there has been some relative over-rep of pitchers from times since 1880 when scoring was low or when complete games and wins were high. And some over-rep of other players from times when scoring was high.

The three most recent pitchers elected are Rollie Fingers, Goose Gossage, and Bruce Sutter. Tom Seaver is the most recent starting pitcher. That highlights something else, related to complete games and wins. Twenty years from now, will we call it a flood of relief pitchers? I guess not but wait and see.

So the same VC ballot exists for the players as it has the last few years when no one was elected? Ok, I had assumed that portion had also undergone the same streamlining that helped elect Bowie Kuhn, Walter O'Malley and Barney Dreyfuss this last go around. I don't believe they met in person, sorry if that seemed to be my implication. If that hasn't changed, my theory doesn't wash.

Not to be nitpicky but both Steve Carlton and Nolan Ryan have been inducted since Seaver and Fingers in 1992. That really does not detract from your point, though. It's been 9 years since a starter has been elected and it'll be a few more years until one gets elected again, depending on how much focus is placed on Roger Clemens's steroid usage. But consistent individual quality starting pitching for a considerable amount of time is lacking compared to the offensive side of things in this era.

[J W]

It'll take a long time before we see under-representation... but it won't take so long before we see an inordinate backlog of players on the ballot, as the known "juiced" players linger. We can already expect McGwire to be on the ballot for a full 15 seasons.

What does this mean? Not sure; depends on how many full ballots of ten contain steroid-ers. Fringe players normally starting from 5-15% may be dropped from the start.

[Ubiquitous]

The only way Mark stays on the ballot for 15 years is if Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds stay on the ballot for 15 or so years. Once they let those guys in then Mark and probably even Palmeiro get in.

[six4three]

The only way Mark stays on the ballot for 15 years is if Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds stay on the ballot for 15 or so years. Once they let those guys in then Mark and probably even Palmeiro get in.

"Once" they let them in?

If they let them in. I'm not convinced that they will, or even that they should.

[Brian McKenna]

I believe this generation will be under-represented by PITCHERS. There will be X many hitters for every pitcher. Shouldn't be that way. Either:
1) there is something wrong in the game, or
2) there is something wrong with the way we are viewing it.