2013 MLB Hall of Fame nominations: The Poll!

[Cowtipper]

Feel free to combined this poll with the other thread.

You may pick up to 10 players. Which of these guys should be elected to the Hall of Fame this year?

Sandy Alomar Jr.
Jeff Bagwell
Craig Biggio
Barry Bonds
Jeff Cirillo
Royce Clayton
Roger Clemens
Jeff Conine
Steve Finley
Julio Franco
Shawn Green
Roberto Hernandez
Ryan Klesko
Kenny Lofton
Edgar Martinez
Don Mattingly
Fred McGriff
Mark McGwire
Jose Mesa
Jack Morris
Dale Murphy
Rafael Palmeiro
Mike Piazza
Tim Raines
Reggie Sanders
Curt Schilling
Aaron Sele
Lee Smith
Sammy Sosa
Mike Stanton
Alan Trammell
Todd Walker
Larry Walker
David Wells
Rondell White
Bernie Williams
Woody Williams

[John Shoemaker]

I voted for:

1. Barry Bonds
2. Roger Clemens
3. Sammy Sosa
4. Curt Schilling
5. Rafael Palmeiro
6. Mark McGwire
7. Jack Morris
8. Mike Piazza
9. Jeff Bagwell
10. Fred McGriff

11. Lee Smith (if I could have voted for 11)

[jalbright]

I'll sticky this thread once I unstick the comparable thread for the 2013 VC election this weekend.

[Yankillaz]

I love this poll. With 17 votes, only Bagwell, Piazza and Bonds are in. While Clemens, McGwire, Biggio and Raines are borderline. Trammell, Schilling and Edgar got some love too.

[Second Base Coach]

What an interesting cast of characters. I would think that this particular vote will be the most talked about and debated vote in the HISTORY of the Hall of Fame election process.

[Biggtone23]

My ten are:
Bagwell
Biggio
Piazza
Raines
Trammell
Martinez
Morris
Mattingly
Clemens- Both these last two get in for having done enough before they started steroids, though I doubt it will be this year.
Bonds

[Fuzzy Bear]

What an interesting cast of characters. I would think that this particular vote will be the most talked about and debated vote in the HISTORY of the Hall of Fame election process.

The BBWAA can vote for up to ten (10) candidates. One of the effects of the PED hysteria is the backlogging on the ballot of a number of guys who would be 1st ballot HOFers were it not for the PED issue.

This is a first in MLB history. It's not like these guys are like Jackson and Cicotte, great players who corrupted the game by not putting out and throwing games. It's not like guys like Pete Rose, who had shady activities that caused them to be ineligible, despite NO evidence that any game was ever thrown, or conspired to be thrown. McGwire, Clemens, Bonds, et al; all these guys are ELIGIBLE! They're not barred from nothing; they are only kept out (or threatened to being kept out) of the HOF by stigmatization from the BBWAA and the sporting public. So the effect will be that over the years, unless there is a sea change, the ballot will be full of the guys considered superstars of their day, yet either (A) the superstars will be passed over for inferior players or (B) no one will be elected to the HOF by the BBWAA.

I consider this unfair to all. It is unfair to the guys who used PEDs who are, quite frankly, being punished in an ex post facto manner. It's also unfair to the second line stars who would ordinarily be considered less than the Bonds/Clemens group but still Hall-worthy. The focus will be on how, say, Curt Schilling, was never considered as great as Clemens, whose numbers are dwarfed by Clemens', but who has a solid case for the HOF. How will Schilling be viewed if he is elected and Clemens isn't? Does that turn HOF enshrinement into a "good conduct medal"? On the other hand, if Schilling is denied because he didn't put up the numbers of a Clemens, doesn't that kind of take away the idea of "he only was that good because he was on PEDs."? What's it going to be like when the biggest stars of a generation are NOT in the HOF, but lesser stars of that generation are? Or, better yet: What's it going to be like when the superstars of an entire generation are eligible for HOF induction but not inducted? How, really, is this going to look?

[Freakshow]

The BBWAA can vote for up to ten (10) candidates. One of the effects of the PED hysteria is the backlogging on the ballot of a number of guys who would be 1st ballot HOFers were it not for the PED issue.

This is a first in MLB history. It's not like these guys are like Jackson and Cicotte, great players who corrupted the game by not putting out and throwing games. It's not like guys like Pete Rose, who had shady activities that caused them to be ineligible, despite NO evidence that any game was ever thrown, or conspired to be thrown. McGwire, Clemens, Bonds, et al; all these guys are ELIGIBLE! They're not barred from nothing; they are only kept out (or threatened to being kept out) of the HOF by stigmatization from the BBWAA and the sporting public. So the effect will be that over the years, unless there is a sea change, the ballot will be full of the guys considered superstars of their day, yet either (A) the superstars will be passed over for inferior players or (B) no one will be elected to the HOF by the BBWAA.

I consider this unfair to all. It is unfair to the guys who used PEDs who are, quite frankly, being punished in an ex post facto manner. It's also unfair to the second line stars who would ordinarily be considered less than the Bonds/Clemens group but still Hall-worthy. The focus will be on how, say, Curt Schilling, was never considered as great as Clemens, whose numbers are dwarfed by Clemens', but who has a solid case for the HOF. How will Schilling be viewed if he is elected and Clemens isn't? Does that turn HOF enshrinement into a "good conduct medal"? On the other hand, if Schilling is denied because he didn't put up the numbers of a Clemens, doesn't that kind of take away the idea of "he only was that good because he was on PEDs."? What's it going to be like when the biggest stars of a generation are NOT in the HOF, but lesser stars of that generation are? Or, better yet: What's it going to be like when the superstars of an entire generation are eligible for HOF induction but not inducted? How, really, is this going to look?

The HOF has its fingers crossed that everything will work out and they won't have to take action.

At the least, the HOF should make a statement offering direction to the voters on how they should assess the players who chose to use illegal PED's to maximize their playing contribution. It needs to be a strong statement telling voters either to put a lot or a little of emphasis on that behavior; either that it should be a major disqualifier or pretty much disregarded. Unfortunately, the HOF board of directors is doing its usual act of ducking for cover and hoping it blows over; which it may.

The BBWAA's long-established rate of electing players is 1.55 per year (73 players in 47 years since annual elections resumed in 1966). This is easily seen in recent history: in the past eight years, they've elected 12 players in a perfectly alternating pattern, 2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1. The HOF is praying that the number of "clean" candidates coming up will enable the electors to maintain something close to this modest rate of electees, especially if the reformed VC can be counted on to provide an inductee or two every year. Then they can ignore the issue and proclaim "the electorate has spoken, having again done an excellent job of identifying the deserving players, blah blah blah."

Even if the HOF gets its wish, it won't work. Due to the factors mentioned by FB, there will be an outcry if the BBWAA fails to elect the best of the PED-tainted candidates. And that is what has always motivated the Hall's board to change the election process: reaction to outrage among a large enough segment of the fans or the writers.

Once a few of the known users are elected, it cracks the door open. It will lead to less and less regard for considering PED's a disqualifying indicator of lack of integrity, and more and more as a condition of the game as it was played in that era.

[jalbright]

Thread is stuck until after the announcement on 1/9.

[Yankillaz]

I agree with second base coach. This thread is the mother of all threads right now, and surprisingly, nobody has commented...

[WolfSpear]

This is going to be quite a shocker come January ... I don't think any of those "suspected" or "proven" will slide in on the first ballot, but what's curious is where will they'll land.

Here's my rundown:
1. Bagwell, Biggio, Martinez, Mattingly, Morris and Raines

[Richard Stark]

I have watched everyone of the retired baseball players on this list play in person or on television.Many of the players I watched in person when they were in the minors and then in the majors.The substance abusers stand beside the non-users.We as fans have heard names thrown around on "the list" but we have never actually seen a full list.I would bet a $1.00 we may never see a full list in my lifetime but I hope I am wrong.MLB should make the list available to the fans.
I have always been in the group that the majority of players that took drugs were balanced between hitters and pitchers during this era.We may never know.My solution for inducting the "known" abusers could be and should be elected but not allowed to appear at the podium for an acceptance speech or never allowed to participate in hall of fame ceremonies ever.The "known" should receive their plaque in the mail but never be able to mingle with the non-abusers in any or hall of fame MLB sanctioned event.

[ol' aches and pains]

Bagwell
Biggio
Piazza
Raines
Smith

No known juicers get my vote. I have my doubts about Bagwell and Piazza, but there hasn't been any credible information linking them to PED's, so they get the benefit of the doubt from me.

[adarowski]

Oh bummer, I saw "Which of these players should be elected to the Hall of Fame this year?" and voted before I saw the limit of 10. I voted for extra players. Is the poll editable if I contact an admin? I hate bad data.

[epaddon]

In the 1990s, the Baseball Writers inducted two pitchers who everyone knew relied heavily on doctoring the baseball in order to get to what was once considered an unshakable HOF standard of 300 wins in Don Sutton and Gaylord Perry. In Perry's case, his entire career practically revolved around a tube of vaseline illegally applied to the ball and the words on his plaque practically celebrates his cheating. It is because of that, that I find it hypocritical and outrageous to hear the writers talk about how "integrity" requires keeping Roger Clemens out. Clemens belongs and so does Bonds (and if they stay out but Mike Piazza gets in, that's the ultimate joke).