There are 45 people eligible for the HOF in 2013. Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are tow of them and they are two of the greatest I have ever seen. At one point in time I was convinced they would be the first two people in MLB history to get 100% of the votes for the HOF. Now, with their connection to steroids they could be on the outside looking in. There is a lot of talent on the 2013 roster, but keep in mind that each voter can only vote for ten players so getting 5% of the vote could be a little bit tougher this year.
Fun trivia #1- There are now 4 playeres with 2 or more MVP's that are eligible for the HOF and not in, can you name them?
Fun fact of the day- There are 65 members of the MLB HOF that have been in a total of 132 movies.
Will they finally get in?
There are 13 players up for nomination that have been up before. I am a firm believer that if you do not get in on the first time, you do not deserve to get in at all. I know that is not a feeling shared by many, but I just do not understand people not getting in the first time but then getting in 5 years down the road. The term first-ballot HOF'er is a term I hate, you are either HOF worthy or you are not. When a player gets voted in after a couple f tries, it is the baseball equivalent of a pity date.
Of the 13 people up again, I feel 5 of them are worthy and probably 2 of them will get in this year, but I do not think the tr 8 will ever get in. Tim Raines, Dom Mattingly, Larry Walker, Bernie Williams, Alan Trammel, Edgar Martinez, and Dale Murphy were all very good players, but I do not see them ever getting in for a variety of reasons. Raines had 6 seasons of 70 steals or more, but was never a great player and he doesn't have any other HOF credentials. Edgar Martinez was great, but he was a DH. There has never been a full time DH voted in and I do not think there ever will be. The other players were all very good and have a tremendous amount of all-star appearances and gold gloves and other various awards, but were never great players and were always overshadowed by at least 3 other people at their respective positions.
I do think that Jack Morris, Lee Smith, Mark McGwire, Jeff Bagwell, and Rafael Palmeiro are all HOF worthy and should be in. Everyone knows the numbers that McGwire and Palmeiro have put up and there is no doubt they are HOF worthy numbers, but the voters showed that steroid implications weigh more against you then great numbers weigh for you. I do think that over time they will both et in, ut I thik it could be a while. I hope the other 3 get in, but again, if they didn't get in on their first try, what has changed with the voters to vote them in this year?
Lee Smith is on the ballot for the 11th time. He retired as the all-time save leader with 473 saves. As a reliever he had 3 top-5 finishes for the Cy-young award. The problem is that there are only 5 relievers in the HOF and since he has retired there have been better closers in baseball( Hoffman, Rivera, etc..). If he doesn't get in this year, I am not sure if he ever will because the next round of closers that will be eligible will have way better numbers.
Jeff Bagwell was a dominant player during his time. He won ROY and has a MVP award. He had 6 straight seasons of 30hr/100RBI. He was not on the Mitchell report and he never tested positive for steroids. The negative on him is his .226 avg in the postseason and he never made it to 2500 hits( only has 2314).
JackMorris is on the ballot for the 14th time. Either let him in or take him off of the ballot. He has 254 wins, was a 20 game winner 3 times and has 7 postseason wins. he was however, never considered a great pitcher, never finished higher then 3rd in the Cy-young voting, and obviously is not HOF worthy in the eyes of the voters since they have passed on him for the last 13 years.
Trivia #2- There are 4 pitchers in the HOF without a Cy-young award, can you name them?
The best of the rest
The other 32 players make up the most controversial HOF first ballot class in the history of MLB. HOw the voters vote on some of the all-time greats from the steroid era will not only have an impact on this current class, but it will have a ripple effect on every other class to enter the HOF.
I only think that there are 6 out of the 32 that deserve to get in and if I was a voter I would let all 6 of them in, steroid implication or not. The fact that Palmeiro and McGwire have received such little votes does not bode well for the these players, but then again, the guys on this year's ballot are all-time greats.
Bonds and Clemens do not need their numbers reviewed. They are arguably both top 10 all time at their position. The cloud of steroid use over them that came from them both perjuring themselves has made them the face of PED use in baseball. Some will say they do not belong in the same class as the great players, but the counter argument is that of the all-time great players, the majority of them had serious character flaws along the lines of domestic abuse, alcoholism and drug abuse. If they do not get in and they get a low % of votes, that will not only show that the current voters will never want them in, but it will also show some of the players that are not quite eligible yet that even though they have HOF numbers, they will probably not get in either.( Pudge, A-Rod, Tejada) I separate Sosa from these two, because I do not consider him an all-time great. Not only does he have the steroid cloud over him, he also got busted with a corked bat. I could see him never getting in. He obviously has the numbers to make it, but there is just too much other stuff hanging over him.
Mike Piazza and Curt Schilling are both under the steroid cloud, but not to the extent that the others are. Both of them are HOF worthy and I feel that they deserve to get in and that the voters will agree with me. Piazza is a 12 time all-star with 427 home runs and a career avg. of .308. He is the best offensive catcher I have ever seen.
Schilling is an interesting case. yes, the same Curt Schilling that the Orioles traded away for Glen Davis( Steve Finley also got traded away in that trade and he is on the ballot this year also). It comes down to how the voters view regular season performance vs. postseason performance. He is 85th all-time in wins with 216 wins with pitchers the likes of David Wells, Andy Petite, Jamie Moyer and other non HOF worthy players ahead of him on that list. That being said, he has 3 300-strikeout seasons, 2 world series rings and 3 20-win seasons. His 11 postseason wins are 5th all time and he has the 3rd highest winning percentage in the postseason at .846. His performance in the 2001 playoffs was one of the most dominant playoff performances in baseball history. He had 56 strikeouts in 48 innings pitched with 4 wins and 3 complete games. The man already has one of his socks in the HOF and there is no reasons not to let the rest of him in.
Craig Biggio is re-united with Bagwell and I feel they both have a real good change of getting in together. He was never under the steroid cloud and he has the numbers and awards to get in. He is a 7 time all-star with 4 gold gloves and 3060 hits. I can see voters shying away from him due to his .234 postseason avg and the fact that he never finished higher than 4th in MVP voting, but at the end of the day, he deserves a plaque in Cooperstown.
The only player I can see on the ballot that will even smell a vote is Kenny Lofton. I do not ever see him getting in, but he will get some votes. He was never a great player, but he was a top outfielder for a good 6-8 year span. He ended his career with a .299 avg, 622 steals, 4 gold gloves, and 6 all-star appearances. I would be shocked if he received more then 20% of the votes.
What does it all mean?
During the steroid era the stats for players became so inflated that every other offensive stat in the history of baseball started to shrink. The HOF voters now have a chance to make those stats stand up again for what they were; all-time great numbers done by players that played the game the right way. I say that with it being know that I feel Bonds, Clemens, Palmeiro and A-Rod are all HOF worthy and they need to be enshrined.
The steroid era made players that had 300-400 home runs in their career seem like nothing. The average year for the top 10 in home runs, rbi's and runs dwarfed the average from 20 years prior. There is obviously more to those numbers then just steroids, but they did have a lot to do with it. If the voters decide to not vote in any player that is associated with steroids, then they are saying that their stats do not matter. That makes the older players that have not been voted in yet have a better chance because now their numbers will seem better( I am looking at you Dale Murphy).
The vote next year will also affect a whole class of current players. There are players now that have never had a shred of accusation on them that are good, but not great. Their numbers seem to get ignored because they do not have 600 hr's, but when these players end their careers with 400-500 home runs, that will be good enough to get them in( Konerko, Vlad, etc). By ignoring all of the status put up by players associated with steroids, it gives the current players a new light of hope. They will know that they do not have to get to 600 home runs to get in and a career .300 with 400 home runs will probably get voted in as long as there is no steroid history in their past. ON the flip side, if the voters choose not to let in anyone associated with PED's, there are at least 15 players that will have HOF numbers but because of the era they played in, they will never get in.
.story.jpg "photo(1).jpg")
v
