CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com

Baseball Prospectus home
  
  
Click here to log in Click here for forgotten password Click here to subscribe

<< Previous Article
The Lineup Card: 10 Me... (01/09)
Next Article >>
Fantasy Article The Keeper Reaper: Sta... (01/10)

January 9, 2013

Hall of Fame Voting

Casting Our Ballots

by Baseball Prospectus

Today we reveal the Baseball Prospectus staff choices for player enshrinement in the Hall of Fame. Each staff member's ballots may be found later in the article. Here, we present a wisdom-of-the-crowds summary of the results.

A complete list of this year's Hall of Fame candidates can be found here. BP's Hall of Fame voting mirrored the official BBWAA voting: Players had to receive 75 percent of the total votes cast in order to gain induction, and voters were allowed to select no more than 10 candidates per ballot. For this exercise, 33 ballots were cast by the BP team, so a player would have needed to gain 25 votes for induction. Next to each of the BP team's selections we've listed the total number of ballots the player appeared on, as well as the percentage of the vote he garnered.

BP Staff Voting Cumulative Results
Barry Bonds, 31, 93.9%
Roger Clemens, 31, 93.9%
Jeff Bagwell, 30, 90.9%
Craig Biggio, 27, 81.8%
Mike Piazza, 28, 84.8%
Tim Raines, 27, 81.8%
Alan Trammell, 27, 81.8%

---
Curt Schilling, 24, 72.7%
Edgar Martinez, 22, 66.7%
Mark McGwire, 14, 42.4%
Rafael Palmeiro, 9, 27.3%
Larry Walker, 9, 27.3%
Sammy Sosa, 7, 21.2%
Kenny Lofton, 6, 18.2%
Fred McGriff, 3, 9.1%
Sandy Alomar Jr., 1, 3%
Don Mattingly, 1, 3%
Dale Murphy, 1, 3%

Individual Ballots:  

 


Stephani Bee

  • Jeff Bagwell
  • Craig Biggio
  • Barry Bonds
  • Roger Clemens
  • Edgar Martinez
  • Mike Piazza
  • Tim Raines
  • Alan Trammell

Hudson Belinsky

  • Sandy Alomar Jr.
  • Jeff Bagwell
  • Craig Biggio
  • Barry Bonds
  • Roger Clemens
  • Don Mattingly
  • Mike Piazza
  • Curt Schilling
  • Sammy Sosa
  • Larry Walker

Jonah Birenbaum

  • Jeff Bagwell
  • Craig Biggio
  • Barry Bonds
  • Roger Clemens
  • Edgar Martinez
  • Mark McGwire
  • Mike Piazza
  • Tim Raines
  • Alan Trammell

Russell A. Carleton

  • Jeff Bagwell
  • Barry Bonds
  • Roger Clemens
  • Tim Raines
  • Curt Schilling
  • Alan Trammell

Derek Carty

  • Jeff Bagwell
  • Craig Biggio
  • Barry Bonds
  • Roger Clemens
  • Edgar Martinez
  • Fred McGriff
  • Mike Piazza
  • Tim Raines
  • Curt Schilling
  • Alan Trammell

Jason Collette

  • Jeff Bagwell
  • Craig Biggio
  • Barry Bonds
  • Roger Clemens
  • Edgar Martinez
  • Mike Piazza
  • Tim Raines
  • Curt Schilling
  • Alan Trammell
  • Larry Walker

Jeff Euston

  • Jeff Bagwell
  • Craig Biggio
  • Barry Bonds
  • Roger Clemens
  • Mark McGwire
  • Rafael Palmeiro
  • Mike Piazza
  • Tim Raines
  • Curt Schilling
  • Sammy Sosa

Dan Evans

  • Craig Biggio
  • Edgar Martinez
  • Tim Raines
  • Alan Trammell

Nick Faleris

  • Jeff Bagwell
  • Craig Biggio
  • Barry Bonds
  • Roger Clemens
  • Edgar Martinez
  • Fred McGriff
  • Rafael Palmeiro
  • Mike Piazza
  • Tim Raines
  • Alan Trammell

Mike Ferrin

  • Jeff Bagwell
  • Craig Biggio
  • Barry Bonds
  • Roger Clemens
  • Edgar Martinez
  • Dale Murphy
  • Mike Piazza
  • Tim Raines
  • Curt Schilling
  • Alan Trammell

Larry Granillo

  • Jeff Bagwell
  • Craig Biggio
  • Barry Bonds
  • Roger Clemens
  • Edgar Martinez
  • Mark McGwire
  • Rafael Palmeiro
  • Mike Piazza
  • Tim Raines
  • Alan Trammell

Joe Hamrahi

  • Jeff Bagwell
  • Craig Biggio
  • Barry Bonds
  • Roger Clemens
  • Edgar Martinez
  • Fred McGriff
  • Mark McGwire
  • Rafael Palmeiro
  • Mike Piazza
  • Tim Raines

Jay Jaffe

  • Jeff Bagwell
  • Craig Biggio
  • Barry Bonds
  • Roger Clemens
  • Edgar Martinez
  • Mike Piazza
  • Tim Raines
  • Curt Schilling
  • Alan Trammell
  • Larry Walker

Matthew Kory

  • Jeff Bagwell
  • Barry Bonds
  • Roger Clemens
  • Mark McGwire
  • Mike Piazza
  • Tim Raines
  • Curt Schilling
  • Alan Trammell

Zachary Levine

  • Jeff Bagwell
  • Craig Biggio
  • Barry Bonds
  • Roger Clemens
  • Kenny Lofton
  • Edgar Martinez
  • Tim Raines
  • Curt Schilling
  • Alan Trammell
  • Larry Walker

Ben Lindbergh

  • Jeff Bagwell
  • Craig Biggio
  • Barry Bonds
  • Roger Clemens
  • Edgar Martinez
  • Mike Piazza
  • Tim Raines
  • Curt Schilling
  • Alan Trammell
  • Larry Walker

Chris Mellen

  • Craig Biggio
  • Barry Bonds
  • Roger Clemens
  • Edgar Martinez
  • Mark McGwire
  • Mike Piazza
  • Sammy Sosa
  • Alan Trammell

Ian Miller

  • Jeff Bagwell
  • Craig Biggio
  • Barry Bonds
  • Roger Clemens
  • Kenny Lofton
  • Edgar Martinez
  • Mike Piazza
  • Curt Schilling

Sam Miller

  • Jeff Bagwell
  • Barry Bonds
  • Roger Clemens
  • Edgar Martinez
  • Mark McGwire
  • Mike Piazza
  • Tim Raines
  • Curt Schilling
  • Alan Trammell
  • Larry Walker

Ben Murphy

  • Jeff Bagwell
  • Craig Biggio
  • Barry Bonds
  • Roger Clemens
  • Edgar Martinez
  • Mark McGwire
  • Tim Raines
  • Curt Schilling
  • Alan Trammell

Jason Parks

  • Jeff Bagwell
  • Barry Bonds
  • Roger Clemens
  • Mike Piazza
  • Tim Raines
  • Alan Trammell

Harry Pavlidis

  • Jeff Bagwell
  • Craig Biggio
  • Barry Bonds
  • Roger Clemens
  • Edgar Martinez
  • Mike Piazza
  • Tim Raines
  • Curt Schilling
  • Alan Trammell

John Perrotto

  • Jeff Bagwell
  • Barry Bonds
  • Roger Clemens
  • Edgar Martinez
  • Rafael Palmeiro
  • Mike Piazza
  • Curt Schilling
  • Alan Trammell
  • Larry Walker

For more about John's Hall of Fame ballot and the reasoning for his selections, check out last week's edition of On the Beat.


Daniel Rathman

  • Jeff Bagwell
  • Craig Biggio
  • Barry Bonds
  • Roger Clemens
  • Kenny Lofton
  • Mark McGwire
  • Rafael Palmeiro
  • Tim Raines
  • Curt Schilling
  • Sammy Sosa

Josh Shepardson

  • Jeff Bagwell
  • Craig Biggio
  • Barry Bonds
  • Roger Clemens
  • Kenny Lofton
  • Edgar Martinez
  • Mike Piazza
  • Tim Raines
  • Curt Schilling
  • Alan Trammell

Paul Singman

  • Jeff Bagwell
  • Craig Biggio
  • Barry Bonds
  • Roger Clemens
  • Mike Piazza
  • Curt Schilling
  • Alan Trammell

Adam Sobsey

  • Jeff Bagwell
  • Craig Biggio
  • Barry Bonds
  • Roger Clemens
  • Mark McGwire
  • Mike Piazza
  • Tim Raines
  • Curt Schilling
  • Alan Trammell

Paul Sporer

  • Jeff Bagwell
  • Craig Biggio
  • Barry Bonds
  • Roger Clemens
  • Edgar Martinez
  • Rafael Palmeiro
  • Mike Piazza
  • Tim Raines
  • Curt Schilling
  • Alan Trammell

Doug Thorburn

  • Jeff Bagwell
  • Craig Biggio
  • Barry Bonds
  • Roger Clemens
  • Mark McGwire
  • Rafael Palmeiro
  • Mike Piazza
  • Tim Raines
  • Curt Schilling
  • Sammy Sosa

Dan Turkenkopf

  • Jeff Bagwell
  • Craig Biggio
  • Barry Bonds
  • Roger Clemens
  • Mark McGwire
  • Mike Piazza
  • Tim Raines
  • Curt Schilling
  • Sammy Sosa
  • Alan Trammell

Jason Wojciechowski

  • Craig Biggio
  • Kenny Lofton
  • Edgar Martinez
  • Mark McGwire
  • Rafael Palmeiro
  • Mike Piazza
  • Curt Schilling
  • Sammy Sosa
  • Alan Trammell
  • Larry Walker

Colin Wyers

  • Jeff Bagwell
  • Craig Biggio
  • Barry Bonds
  • Roger Clemens
  • Kenny Lofton
  • Edgar Martinez
  • Mark McGwire
  • Mike Piazza
  • Tim Raines
  • Alan Trammell

Geoff Young

  • Jeff Bagwell
  • Barry Bonds
  • Roger Clemens
  • Mike Piazza
  • Tim Raines
  • Curt Schilling
  • Alan Trammell
  • Larry Walker

218 comments have been left for this article. (Click to hide comments)

BP Comment Quick Links

Thenewcat1

So two non voters for Bonds and Clemons. One leaves of all PED users (or suspected users), but I know Jason must be expecting questions over his ballot. I'm first so I'll ask it

How do you leave off Bonds and Clemons but still vote for McGwire, Sosa and Palmeiro?

Jan 09, 2013 04:15 AM
rating: 0
 
Eddie Bajek

I'm betting because he doesn't really care about the Hall of Fame and there's an implicit point.

Jan 09, 2013 04:26 AM
rating: 2
 
EthanSpalding

Or maybe because he knew Bonds and Clemens would get in with these voters, and because of the 10 vote limit he voted for more borderline guys?

Jan 09, 2013 06:16 AM
rating: 1
 
apbadogs

What? If everyone thought that way then only borderline guys would get in. Vote for the guys you want in, period. Don't try to outthink the room.

Bottom line though, a vast majority of the BBWAA voters are frigging idiots.

Jan 09, 2013 06:47 AM
rating: 5
 
bhalpern

This. I also can't stand this 'I don't think he deserves to get elected in his first year' garbage. You either think he deserves to be in or not. Sure, a voter can change his/her mind. But it's nobody's job to enforce their perfect vision of a player's legacy.

Jan 09, 2013 09:54 AM
rating: 0
 
BP staff member Jason Wojciechowski
BP staff

I wish someone had told me that there was a rule against outthinking the room before I'd voted. Gosh how that would have helped.

As it turns out, it didn't really matter -- Lofton gets his 5% (I chose to vote as if that matters) with or without me and I was not one of the people who kept Schilling one vote short.

Jan 09, 2013 10:01 AM
 
Thenewcat1

I can't speak for anyone else, but I wasn't accusing you of outthinking the room - I'm just interested in why you cast the votes you did...

Jan 10, 2013 06:37 AM
rating: 0
 
apbadogs

Why, as a voter, are you concerned AT ALL (fake voting or not) what another voter is or isn't going to do?

Jan 10, 2013 09:33 AM
rating: 0
 
BP staff member Jason Wojciechowski
BP staff

Because I don't see my (hypothetical) ballot in a case like this year, where I think there are far more than 10 good candidates, as a means to express my idea of who the ten best players are but as a means to maximize the probability that all fourteen of the players who I think are deserving eventually get in.

In this case, that means putting on players who I thought were at risk of falling under 5% rather than players who I judged (correctly, as it turns out) were likely to be near-unanimous choices.

Jan 10, 2013 10:12 AM
 
BP staff member Larry Granillo
BP staff

I wonder how many more players we might have elected if not for the 10-player maximum. I know that I originally had 14 players on my ballot and I struggled to decide which four (out of six) I would leave off. I went with Palmeiro and McGwire, but I very easily could have gone Lofton, Schilling, Walker or Sosa. I bet I wasn't alone.

Jan 09, 2013 04:51 AM
 
Hodiggity2001

I'm glad to see you acknowledge the best players during their era (ped or not). I'm really disappointed in the early numbers from the baseball writers. Maybe its time for everyone to take a closer look at the criteria for those who get a vote in this process.

Jan 09, 2013 05:12 AM
rating: 1
 
APV2600

I'd be happy with that result

Jan 09, 2013 05:18 AM
rating: 0
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

No one who has admitted to using or been found to be using ped's should be in the Hall of Fame.

Anyone in the Hall who ie revealed as a user should be immediately thrown out.

Jan 09, 2013 05:27 AM
rating: -20
 
Bryan Grosnick

So, just for clarity's sake, that should include Hank Aaron / Mike Schmidt who've admitted to using amphetamines, right?

Jan 09, 2013 06:17 AM
rating: 15
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

Again it's similiar to cycling - eop and blood manipulation had such a huge impact on performance - as did steroid use in baseball that their impact is distinct from things like amphetamines which had a marginal impact - and in some cases negative impact - on performance.

The initial statement was intentionally too dogmatic but was meant to start debate - which it is doing :-)

Jan 09, 2013 06:25 AM
rating: -15
 
jfribley

Yeah, because no one's debated the HoF steroid issue. Thanks for sparking that up, you did a real national service.

Jan 09, 2013 06:27 AM
rating: 7
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

You surely can't discuss whether the high profile people up for nomination this year belong in th ehall without considering it can you?

"sarcasm is the lowest form of wit"

Jan 09, 2013 06:34 AM
rating: -9
 
Bryan Grosnick

So you're saying that breaking the rules isn't the problem, it's breaking them in a way that provides *what you see as* a large enough performance advantage?

I call bull.

If someone can show me scientific data that shows that steroids DEFINITELY improve practical baseball performance AND amphetamines DEFINITELY don't (or it's "marginal" compared to steroids ... which is ludicrous), that's the only way your point makes any sense at all -- and then it's still a bad one. Otherwise, it's about the rules, and whether people care about rule-breaking.

And please. The 'amphetamines don't matter because "everyone" was doing it' defense applies just the same to steroids, if you listen to the people who say "everyone" was on steroids in the 90s-00s.

Jan 09, 2013 06:37 AM
rating: 6
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

Are you a believer in Lance as well?

Jan 09, 2013 06:39 AM
rating: -8
 
Bryan Grosnick

Huh? What does that have to do with anything at all related to rule-breaking in baseball?

Jan 09, 2013 06:46 AM
rating: 2
 
andrews

It's concerned with the morality of using ped's to dramatically enhance performance, and thus fame, wealth, etc

Jan 09, 2013 06:55 AM
rating: -2
 
Bryan Grosnick

I'm not making a morality argument here. I'm making an argument about what it means to break a rule, and how some players are held to different standards than others.

So, no, it's not relevant in the slightest.

Jan 09, 2013 07:37 AM
rating: 1
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

Oh if only the world could be viewed simply in black and white, without those pesky shades of grey ;-)

Jan 09, 2013 07:41 AM
rating: -7
 
Bryan Grosnick

From earlier: "Anyone in the Hall who is revealed as a user should be immediately thrown out."

Pot-kettle-etc.

You're just messing with people, right? It seems obvious that now you're just trying to be confrontational rather than make a coherent argument.

Jan 09, 2013 07:43 AM
rating: 1
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

No - inclusion in the hall is based on performance, certain ped's affect performance more than others.

Jan 09, 2013 07:45 AM
rating: -7
 
Richard Bergstrom

PED stands for Performance Enhancing Drug.. all PEDs affect performance including amphetamines. In addition, some things not labeled PEDs or are even called drugs can enhance performance such as caffeine, energy drinks, vitamins, etc.

Jan 09, 2013 10:19 AM
rating: 0
 
andrews

Caffeine was a banned substance until recently I believe. You can't seriously be suggesting that all ped's affect performance to the same degree????
Epo has a huge impact for example.

Jan 09, 2013 11:54 AM
rating: -2
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

... you are aren't you, admit it ;-)

Jan 09, 2013 06:55 AM
rating: -4
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

amphetamines don't change or enhance your psysiology, they just heighten mental awareness (positive) energy levels (usually positive) but can impair decision making (negative).
So their are pros and cons - it's safe to say that amphetamine use didn't drastically affect performance.

We all know what steroids did to baseball in the 'roid era.

Jan 09, 2013 06:49 AM
rating: -6
 
Bryan Grosnick

Er, no. We actually don't know what steroids did to baseball, because we can't say with CERTAINTY what steroids did to the players themselves, let alone how it affected the skills that they apply to the game.

We can guess, we can assume, we can imagine ... but we can't know. Saying we can is sheer arrogance.

Jan 09, 2013 06:55 AM
rating: 4
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

oh come on you're seriously arguing that their is no evidence that steroid use affected home run hitting in baseball?

Jan 09, 2013 06:57 AM
rating: -5
 
SeanDoyle

Neifi Perez

Jan 09, 2013 07:07 AM
rating: 8
 
APer930

read BP's Extra Innings on steroid use, and things like bats, balls, and new stadiums come into the argument. plus, you aren't factoring in steroids that pitchers used. either way, i'd probably never consider PED usage when making a HOF vote without much better scientific evidence

Jan 09, 2013 13:35 PM
rating: 0
 
eliyahu

Not sure why everyone is so down on Andrews. I understand the thinking that HOF voting should ignore PED use, or suspected PED users, but to simply dismiss people that want to keep out confirmed PED users? Pretty small-minded.

As to Lance Armstrong, I think the analogy is pretty apt. He cheated, and he knew he cheated (which is why he did everything to hide it), as do the baseball cheaters. There's a reason the Bondses and Clemenses are denying; they know it was wrong. Im not advocating keeping out suspected cheaters (e.g. Piazza and Bagwell), but confirmed cheaters? To not accept the thinking that they should be kept out of the Hall?

Jan 09, 2013 14:04 PM
rating: 1
 
andrews

Thank you Eliyahu, ped's tarnish any sport because you don't know to what extent the achievements are due to pure talent or the drugs. Of course it can never be scientifically proven so all you are left with is doubt and rancour and a sour taste.
Maybe baseball needs to send a lesson to future generations by making an example of this generation, for the long time health if the game. Lets say we do not accept doping and we do not condone it.

Jan 09, 2013 14:18 PM
rating: -1
 
apbadogs

I'm sure most of us have heard that they basically had bowls of uppers sitting out in the clubhouses, basically like M&Ms.

Jan 09, 2013 06:50 AM
rating: 1
 
apollo

i disagree that they should be thrown out. But, amphetamines are not steroids/PEDs that Bonds and Clemens used. The Emperor Has No Clothes---you do not celebrate as heroes someone who egregiously broke the rules of the game--I do not buy it, 100 times, no. I am just a tiny spark in cyberspace, but amphetamine = PED argument is a straw man. Tom Verducci on MLB network said the same thing, 1) Greenies were 50 years ago, not our job today to sort that out 2) HR records didnt fall like dominos with greenies---the integrity of the game was not nearly as diminished

Jan 10, 2013 18:01 PM
rating: 1
 
buddaley

We will all have our pet projects. Mine is Edgar Martinez. In my view, he is to the DH what Mariano Rivera is to closers. Both roles are relatively new, albeit the DH is now 40 years old, and in both cases there are legitimate arguments over the relative value of the role compared to position players and starting pitchers respectively.

Like Mariano, Edgar is the greatest at his role in the history of the game. Perhaps an argument can be made for David Ortiz as comparable, but I think Edgar has the edge. No need to review his stats. Whether seen as raw data or in comparison to his peers, his offense was elite.

There are players in the HOF based primarily on their defense. There are many players in based almost exclusively on their offense, in some cases where their contributions are actually diminished because of poor defense and/or base running. It makes no sense to penalize a player who provides little to no defensive value when we honor those with negative value. I do think the offensive ceiling for a DH to qualify has to be higher than that of a position player, but Edgar crashes through that ceiling.

Imagine picking a starting lineup for the greatest team of all time, only using players who filled the role in real life.

C: Bench (Berra?)
1B: Gehrig (Pujols?)
2B: Morgan (Hornsby? Collins?)
3B: Schmidt
SS: Wagner
LF: Williams (Bonds?)
CF: Mays
RF: Ruth
DH: Martinez
RHSP: Johnson (Clemens? Seaver? Maddux? Pedro?)
LHSP: Grove (Johnson?)
CL: Rivera

See the point? Of the 12 players, he is one of just 6 about whom there could be no debate.

I don't think he was as great a player as any of those because either they were dramatically better hitters (Ruth) or they added significant defensive value to their game (Schmidt). And I also do not like to compare players to less qualified HOFers like Rice or Hafey.

But I think most people accept that McCovey, Stargell, Killebrew and Reggie Jackson definitely belong in the HOF, and none were good defensively. Compare Edgar's offensive numbers to theirs and I think it clear he fits in very neatly with them.

Jan 09, 2013 05:34 AM
rating: 3
 
canada

I wouldn't say there is no debate about Martinez as your all-time DH. If you take best seasons by a player as a DH, David Ortiz factors in. If you take best overall hitter who spent meaningful time as a DH, Frank Thomas is even better.

Jan 09, 2013 08:51 AM
rating: 2
 
Yarky1

Ortiz doesn't factor in. Martinez's best season is better than his. Martinez's second best season is better than Ortiz's second best (or best). And on down the line. Martinez was clearly better than Ortiz. I'd say that Thomas was better, but not during the time that he was primarily a DH.

Jan 09, 2013 09:47 AM
rating: 0
 
BarryR

So Edgar Martinez gets credit for being unable to play a position? I don't think it is unreasonable to think that Frank Thomas could have hit just as much without his often difficult efforts at playing 1B.
Edgar Martinez spending the overwhelming majority of his career as a DH is in no way a positive.

Jan 09, 2013 11:46 AM
rating: 6
 
TADontAsk

For the record, I seem to recall Thomas saying that he felt much more comfortable when playing 1B. His career splits bear that out in a big way.

As a 1B: .337/.453/.625
As a DH: .275/.394/.505

And he had 4,334 PAs as a 1B and 5,698 as a DH, so it's not a question of small sample size at 1 position. Of course, the bigger factor is that much of his time at DH came on the downside of his aging curve, so one must take that into account.

Jan 09, 2013 11:54 AM
rating: 0
 
bhalpern

Am I wrong in recalling that Edgar was more or less an average fielder at 3B, but kept getting hurt. That's not much better but seems like it should be less of a strike against him than if he couldn't play in the field because of ineptness.

Jan 09, 2013 12:05 PM
rating: 1
 
BarryR

Not really - if he couldn't play without getting hurt it gives him intrinsically less value. He avoided all the wear and tear which comes from playing the field, including reduced chance of injury.

Jan 10, 2013 14:30 PM
rating: 0
 
Yarky1

Not sure what you mean. I was just responding to the other post. Was Thomas a better DH than Edgar? No, I don't think so. Might have been a better player, but his best years were at first. Would he theoretically have been a better DH? Maybe (but see TADon'tAsk). Not sure how that's relevant to the issue, though.

Jan 09, 2013 12:59 PM
rating: 0
 
fantasyking

I must say I am suprised by the near-unanimity on Bonds, Clemens, etc. How often do you see 93.9% agreement on any baseball-related debate, much less one as difficult as allowing PED users in the HOF? Apparently, there is no controversy here after all, at least not among statistically-oriented fans & writers.

Jan 09, 2013 05:35 AM
rating: 2
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

The issue is you have to consider the message you are giving to youngsters.

By allowing a ped user in you are effectively condoning it in that youngsters eyes.

Jan 09, 2013 05:40 AM
rating: -20
 
MSGT8500

Part of the problem with your answer, and it somewhat ties in with your earlier answer is this... how many players is there "proof" of using PEDs? Many people are using anecdotal evidence as proof. Guess what, there is just as much anecdotal evidence that players of the 50's through 80's used greenies as there is about players of the last 20 years using steroids. There is also as much evidence about other players using other unethical means to gain a competitive advantage in both, and prior, eras.

I fall on the side of... if you want to keep the "alleged" steroid users out, that's fine, go back and retroactively remove the "alleged" greenie users and the "alleged" spitball throwers nad the guys who "allegedly" corked their bats and the guys who violate the definition of the character clause. Otherwise, vote the best players from each era into the HoF unless there is actual proof they violated current, existing and know rules.

Some dude saying "I stuck a needle in some guys butt and here's the 15 year old needle" isn't proof. Arrest for possesion or a positive test or being caught in the act (spitballs, corked bat, etc) is proof. And yes, as a Cubs fan who loved Sammy at the time, the corked bat incident would weigh heavily on my vote, since he was actually caught using it.

Jan 09, 2013 05:55 AM
rating: 2
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

It's really germaine to discuss this at the moment with the fall of Lance Armstrong - it is hard to distinguish between different types of cheating but my focus on ped's is because of the very real health implications from their use.

You can't get cancer from using a corked bat which for me is more 'angle-shooting'.

We have to resist the escalation towards kids damaging their health in order to make it in professional sports.

Also what about all the clean ballplayers who never made it to the 'sgow' because their peers were juicing up?

Jan 09, 2013 06:06 AM
rating: -5
 
greenengineer

OK, so what about people who have surgery just to be able to pitch again (or pitch with a bloody sock)? Aren't they also"damaging their health in order to make it in professional sports"?

Jan 09, 2013 06:50 AM
rating: 0
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

That would be an ethical question for the doctors and surgeons involved.

Steroid use is damaging to healt and brings no benefits - that's incontestable.

Jan 09, 2013 06:53 AM
rating: -4
 
edwardarthur

I totally disagree. My five-year old loves stories about Mickey Mantle, and there's no need to dwell on his many failings -- she'll learn about that when she's older. Why can't we have the same joy discussing Roger Clemens? She knows about the PED charges, but at this age she should be allowed to focus on the wonder of his accomplishments.

Jan 09, 2013 05:55 AM
rating: 3
 
tannerg

I always thought it was a parent's job to raise and educate a youngster as to what is right and wrong, not the Baseball Hall of Fame's job.

Jan 09, 2013 06:14 AM
rating: 7
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

So how sports stars behave has no impact on younsters - that's quite a statement?

Jan 09, 2013 06:22 AM
rating: -11
 
BP staff member Paul Sporer
BP staff

It's quite a statement to suggest they will or won't do something based on whether or not a baseball player is enshrined in a museum.

If you find out your child is using HGH in high school and their answer when questioned is "WELL BARRY BONDS IS IN THE HALL OF FAME!!!!", then you failed as a parent and you've got much bigger problems than the Baseball HOF.

Jan 09, 2013 06:41 AM
 
andrews

I'm saying that it can have a significant effect along with many other influences on a young person. Of course i dont mean it's the ONLY thing that has an effect - tghis is getting silly.

Do i really have to defend the principle of role models?

Jan 09, 2013 09:41 AM
rating: -2
 
Dodger300

Yes, you do.

Jan 15, 2013 08:33 AM
rating: -1
 
jdeich

Why is 'use of drugs' unique among bad behaviors? Should Ty Cobb have been excluded? Was Babe Ruth a good role model for children? Was Gaylord Perry?

Miguel Cabrera has had issues with domestic violence, drunk driving, threatening people at a diner with a gun, confrontations with police, etc. He's been arrested multiple times, and if he wasn't Miguel Cabrera he'd probably be in jail. Should he be excluded from future consideration? He's not exactly a good role model for children. Where do you draw the line?

Jan 09, 2013 06:46 AM
rating: 4
 
andrews

That's a whole differenr debate - all i would say is you can't compare 'character flaws' and their consequences from a carefully planned, pre-meditated and ongoing process of cheating to give yourself an advantage on the field.

And you're dodging the most important point which is the negative impacts on health of using steroids.

Jan 09, 2013 06:51 AM
rating: -3
 
BP staff member Paul Sporer
BP staff

What health impacts are you referring to specifically? Are you talking about the stereotypical ones associated with school anabolic steroids or are there some related to HGH or other designer drugs that you're referencing?

Jan 09, 2013 06:54 AM
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

so in the alice in wonderland world of BP there are no adverse health affects to injecting steroids HGH and other artificial stuff into your body.

Interesting you bring up HGH becuase numerous studies link this to cancer.

Jan 09, 2013 07:21 AM
rating: -7
 
BP staff member Paul Sporer
BP staff

I simply asked for some evidence and proof of the adverse health effects you seem so certain of. Legitimate evidence of them, of course.

Jan 09, 2013 07:32 AM
 
andrews

Can i post links here?

Jan 09, 2013 07:34 AM
rating: -2
 
BP staff member Paul Sporer
BP staff

I don't see why not.

Additionally, I'd like to see your proof that steroids aid performance and do so appreciably more than amphetamines (as admitted amphetamine users are already inducted). Otherwise, it's just conjecture based on small samples. There are misses than hits when it comes to users.

Jan 09, 2013 07:41 AM
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

I give up lol

The world is flat you know - prove me it isn't or is the sample size of 1 too small.

Jan 09, 2013 07:44 AM
rating: -11
 
BP staff member Paul Sporer
BP staff

You give up because I'm asking for support on your claims? Your exasperation over that removes any credibility you may've had. I cannot see how it's problematic that I'm asking you to back up what you're saying.

Jan 09, 2013 07:52 AM
 
andrews

au contraire - please see below

Jan 09, 2013 07:53 AM
rating: -1
 
TADontAsk

That link has nothing to do with the price of tomatoes in Honduras. He asked for proof that steroids aid performance. That link describes health consequences.

Jan 09, 2013 08:00 AM
rating: -2
 
andrews


Paul Sporer

BP staff

(24912)



I simply asked for some evidence and proof of the adverse health effects you seem so certain of. Legitimate evidence of them, of course.

Jan 09, 2013 08:03 AM
rating: -1
 
andrews

http://rphr.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/57/1/411

Jan 09, 2013 07:58 AM
rating: -1
 
andrews

I was just incredulous at having to present evidence of something that is so widely accepted as beyond question.

Shall we move on to "Do cigarettes cause cancer?"

Jan 09, 2013 07:59 AM
rating: -2
 
BP staff member Paul Sporer
BP staff

I think the problem is that you think it's "so widely accepted as beyond question" as I know throngs of folks who question just how much steroids would aid a player's performance.

If you can find something proving the positive effects of steroids on baseball that's as concrete as cigarettes and cancer, then feel free. Otherwise, save that kind of trash, you're only hurting yourself with it.

Jan 09, 2013 08:12 AM
 
andrews

That's cool - i must have been mistaken. I had assumed that it was accepted that steroid use in the 90/00's increased home run power amongst certain ballplayers - my bad

Jan 09, 2013 08:20 AM
rating: -3
 
Dodger300

You are challenged to provide evidence, and so you give up.

Thanks, that is all we need to know.

Jan 15, 2013 08:36 AM
rating: -1
 
andrews

Have you ever taken amphetamines?

Jan 09, 2013 11:57 AM
rating: 0
 
BP staff member Jason Parks
BP staff

After reading all of your comments, I had to take amphetamines.

Jan 09, 2013 12:13 PM
 
eliyahu

Really, Paul? You don't think PEDs artificially inflated Barry Bonds's performance? I don't see how any thinking person can come to that conclusion.

I agree that not all steroids help all people equally. But ignoring all other evidence in specific cases with overwhelming visual evidence is not the proper reaction.

Jan 09, 2013 14:19 PM
rating: 3
 
andrews

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/anabolic-steroid-abuse/what-are-health-consequences-steroid-abuse

Jan 09, 2013 07:52 AM
rating: 0
 
BP staff member Paul Sporer
BP staff

I already knew the anabolic steroid stuff, that why I was asking if you were banging that drum or if you had anything on the new school stuff like HGH. Keep in mind that this also "Possible Health Consequences of Anabolic Steroid Abuse"

"Possible" and "Abuse" being the very important words. Taking a few cycles of anabolic steroids doesn't give you a set of 36Cs and a brain tumor instantly.

Jan 09, 2013 08:10 AM
 
andrews

No but an athlete using them over a sustained period because HE believes them to aid his performance does.

If you thing about it all that matters to that young ballplayer is the perception that it improves performance (whether ot not it does)will make him more likely to do it - he won't be reading up on scientific studies - he'll just think it helped bonds hit 73 hr's and they still let him in the HOF on his first ballot.

Jan 09, 2013 08:14 AM
rating: -2
 
BP staff member Paul Sporer
BP staff

What? I honestly don't know what you're talking about here. Are you saying that just the idea that steroids are helping a player is enough to help him and thus steroids improve stats? So placebo effect then?

Jan 09, 2013 08:20 AM
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

No i'm saying that if the perception exists that it helps and the perception exists that Barry Bonds took steriods and then Barry Bonds is voted into the HOF on the 1st ballot then it's not inconceivable that a person may think - I'm going to take steroids - it helped Barry Bonds and he's in the HOF.

It's not that difficult surely, Jesus wept!

Jan 09, 2013 09:45 AM
rating: -5
 
Dan W.

So is it okay if Bonds gets in on the second ballot?

Jan 09, 2013 14:11 PM
rating: -1
 
andrews

No he shouldn't get in ever.

Jan 09, 2013 14:47 PM
rating: -2
 
jdeich

Are you arguing that Gaylord Perry's doctoring of baseballs was not a "carefully planned, pre-meditated and ongoing process of cheating to give [Perry] an advantage on the field"? What about Cobb deliberately trying to injure other players, in an era where a torn ligament probably ended a career?

Jan 09, 2013 07:17 AM
rating: -1
 
andrews

Where have i defended that behaviour?

Jan 09, 2013 07:36 AM
rating: 2
 
apbadogs

What's quite a statement is people thinking the only way to protect, grow, teach, nuture our kids is to have government step in or in someway hide our kids from whatever "evil" is trying to get them.

Jan 09, 2013 06:56 AM
rating: -1
 
andrews

what's the government got to do with it lol?

Jan 09, 2013 06:58 AM
rating: -1
 
BP staff member Paul Sporer
BP staff

What does the baseball HOF have to do with raising kids and instilling positive values in them?

Jan 09, 2013 07:03 AM
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

Because by allowing them in it indirectly "legitimizes" the use of deliberately using banned substances to gain an unfair advantage over their peers.

Jan 09, 2013 07:06 AM
rating: -8
 
BP staff member Paul Sporer
BP staff

And how does that directly relate to raising your kids again?

Jan 09, 2013 07:07 AM
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

I'm talking about athlete's being role models - another poster started talking about raising your kids.

Jan 09, 2013 07:11 AM
rating: -5
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

I find the fact that this statement is "deemed inappropriate" hilarious lol

Jan 09, 2013 06:42 AM
rating: -6
 
SeanDoyle

It just means people keep giving negative reviews to your comments. "Inappropriate" is probably not the best way of thinking of it, "below the viewing threshold" i.e. "several people think the comment sucks" is closer

Jan 09, 2013 07:13 AM
rating: 2
 
andrews

so saying that "cheating by taking ped's is wrong" sucks does it?

Do you really mean that?

Jan 09, 2013 07:17 AM
rating: -3
 
gweedoh565

Your comments are aggressive, confrontational, and usually include logical fallacies and poorly explained or unsupported arguments. Hence, they suck.

Jan 09, 2013 07:28 AM
rating: 11
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

Is taking ped's wrong?

Jan 09, 2013 08:02 AM
rating: -6
 
Richard Bergstrom

Most youngsters don't care about baseball.

Even more don't care about the Hall of Fame.

Even more still cheat on their spelling tests.

Jan 09, 2013 15:13 PM
rating: 3
 
Masshole

Jack Morris will not be pleased. Although I bet other than Tigers fans (and maybe Twins fans) and some writers who happen to think he was the best pitcher of all pitchers who pitched exactly between the years 1980 and 1989, most other baseball fans can live with that.

Jan 09, 2013 05:39 AM
rating: 1
 
Jack Thomas
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

A question for the BP staffers that voted for Bonds. Did you read the book "Game of Shadows" by Williams & Fainaru-Wada re. the BALCO mess. If not, shame on you for expressing an opinion on Bonds without doing adequate research.

Jan 09, 2013 05:59 AM
rating: -20
 
kozysnacker

Glad you enjoyed the book, sir.

Jan 09, 2013 06:25 AM
rating: -1
 
BP staff member Colin Wyers
BP staff

I'm pretty sure all of us are aware of those issues regarding Bonds. Each of us that voted for him decided that what he accomplished overshadowed those things. You can reach a different decision than us, we have yet to acquire the power to actively stop you, but that is a true expression of our opinion on the totality of what Bonds has done, on and off the field.

Jan 09, 2013 06:29 AM
 
BP staff member Paul Sporer
BP staff

Game of Overshadowed those things*

FTFY!

Jan 09, 2013 06:31 AM
 
BP staff member Jason Parks
BP staff

I voted for Bonds because he's one of the best baseball players in the history of the game. I read the book in question. It didn't alter that opinion.

Jan 09, 2013 08:44 AM
 
AJ

I think it's more important they read Game of Thrones.

Jan 09, 2013 12:49 PM
rating: 4
 
06Curtain

Research is defined as "the systematic investigation and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions" (Merriam Webster). Propaganda is defined as "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a particular political cause or point of view" (Merriam Webster). The book "Game of Shadows" contains more propaganda than research.

Jan 09, 2013 06:22 AM
rating: 1
 
Richard Bergstrom

Usually ESPN posts a webpage before the results saying who among their staff voted for who but this year they didn't.

Jan 09, 2013 06:39 AM
rating: 0
 
Richard Bergstrom

Well, it's posted now.

Jan 09, 2013 10:16 AM
rating: 0
 
apbadogs

I have almost, almost, gotten to the point where I don't give a flying **** if a pro athlete wants to juice or not. If they want to shorten their lifespan, shrink their testacles, have back acne, all for the sake of running faster, hitting the ball higher, tackling harder, who cares? Let's just turn them all into freak shows and see what happens.

Jan 09, 2013 06:53 AM
rating: -2
 
andrews

And what about the clean athletes who never make it to the show because their didn't juice?

What about them?

Jan 09, 2013 07:03 AM
rating: -1
 
BP staff member Colin Wyers
BP staff

The Hall of Fame is an effort to record the history of the game, not to create it. Nobody is trying to whitewash what occurred or deny that steroids existed, were used and caused damage. Speaking for myself, you still can't come to a complete accounting of the past several decades of baseball without some of these players. This isn't analogous to a Pete Rose sort where they've been wholly blackballed from the sport, some of these people are still hanging around (even coaching). They were and are an integral part of baseball history, and we have decided to treat them as such. It may not be a wholly pleasant history -- it never is. But it's the history we have.

Jan 09, 2013 07:09 AM
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

I respect your argument, i'm just concerned that it's being brushed under the carpet and enshrining a notorious and blatent steroid user sends the message:

"It's ok even if you get caught, because people will just remember all those moon shot home runs you hit, or your ability to throw hard for longer completely against the previously accepted limits of the human body...that's the history of game, it was great and well, you know,, just do it!......"

Jan 09, 2013 07:15 AM
rating: -4
 
BP staff member Colin Wyers
BP staff

But you see, it's not that simple.

Those men already have the fame and the accolades and the money and all the trappings of success. If that's how you choose to view the accomplishments of those men, that's up to you (I'd argue it's an incomplete accounting). But that message is being sent by reality, not us. We're just recording it for posterity.

Jan 09, 2013 07:22 AM
 
andrews

2 points - for these athlete's often the most important thing is their legacy - and being in th eHOF is essential to that.

Also for all that wealth, remember it can be lost as well and you can end up in prison - see Lance Armstrong.

If an athlete shows genuine contritution and plays an active part in discoutraging the future use of ped's - well that may have a bearing...

Jan 09, 2013 07:25 AM
rating: -3
 
BP staff member Colin Wyers
BP staff

Most PED users and potential PED users are far, far closer to washing out of baseball than they are to even making a Hall of Fame ballot. I doubt it matters much to them at all how their legacy is viewed, because most players don't have legacies at all.

Jan 09, 2013 07:31 AM
 
andrews

But those players are not on the HOF ballot. I'm confused by your point?

Are you saying in a roundabout way the steroids had no positive impact on performance?

Jan 09, 2013 07:38 AM
rating: -3
 
robbtodd

The history of the game is recorded with or without the Hall of Fame.

Jan 09, 2013 07:34 AM
rating: 2
 
bheikoop

List off the research that has shown steroids improve performance in baseball. For every user who saw a spike in performance, there were 20 others who were lousy scrubs.

Imagine using that logic in all aspects of life...

Jan 09, 2013 07:17 AM
rating: -1
 
bheikoop
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

Leaving Bonds off your ballot is inexcusable. There is absolutely no data which suggests steroids actually improve your performance - see Alex Sanchez.

And Dan must have been taking this as a joke. Even though he can't point to any evidence which states steroids improve performance, he still left out assumed user Jeff Bagwell.

I guess I'm glad that he isn't more than a monthly contributor to this site.

Jan 09, 2013 07:15 AM
rating: -15
 
bcshults

this is such bad reasoning. maybe Sanchez would have been worse without them. I agree we can't know exactly how steroids affected the stats, but there are decades worth of double blind clinical studies showing how steroids enhance biological factors that correlate with athletic performance. pharmacological nihilism is as silly as denying global warming and saying the President was born in Kenya.

Jan 09, 2013 07:39 AM
rating: 6
 
bheikoop

What sort of "athletic performance(s)" were these? Lifting weights? Running? Jumping?

I'm guessing there haven't been any regarding squaring up a round ball with a round bat.

And you're right, MAYBE Sanchez would have been worse. But maybe he would have been better. Until there is actual research to suggest that steroids would improve a players baseball ability, you cannot conclude anything. It would be like confirming global warming because "I wore shorts for an extra day or two last summer."

Jan 09, 2013 13:59 PM
rating: -3
 
thegeneral13

Superb integration of ignorance and arrogance in one post. A+.

Jan 09, 2013 14:31 PM
rating: 3
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

You do quite a lot of running playing baseball you know ;-)

Jan 09, 2013 14:37 PM
rating: -4
 
zeeekz

Interesting that Mr. Evans, BP's resident former GM has selected only four to nominate to the Hall. Speaks volumes.

Jan 09, 2013 07:15 AM
rating: 1
 
Llarry

Maybe, maybe not.

Not voting for "sure-fire Hall-of-Famers" (however you want to define that) because you don't want them to be unanimous is a travesty.

Not voting for s-fHOFers to send a message to the public about how they should feel about an era is ridiculous.

Not voting for s-fHOFers because at this point you are still not completely comfortable with how you view the circumstances of their careers (which is how Dan's ballot reads to me), yeah I can live with that.

Jan 09, 2013 12:53 PM
rating: 0
 
Jack Thomas
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

McGuire is not worthy of the "HOF" because he admitted using "PEDs" & Bonds is because he lied about using?

Jan 09, 2013 07:24 AM
rating: -4
 
bheikoop

No, I think it's because you can't compare a guy with 70 WAR to a guy with 168 WAR. Let's say steroids are worth 70 WAR, Bonds still chipped in an extra 98 based on his on talents.

Jan 09, 2013 07:28 AM
rating: 6
 
BP staff member Derek Carty
BP staff

It's because McGwire wasn't nearly as good as Bonds. Even if you ignore steroids, his numbers alone may not justify him getting in.

Jan 09, 2013 12:06 PM
 
bheikoop

I'm also curious about Curt Schilling....Nearly the same WAR as Bagwell - only better.

Jan 09, 2013 07:24 AM
rating: 0
 
ddufourlogger

Schilling will get in someday, just not on this ballot.

Jan 09, 2013 08:06 AM
rating: 0
 
bbozorth

I think there is a HUGE ripple effect. If, as I hear it nobody gets in, next year we still can only have 10 votes by the electorate. Those who become elligible now dilute the votes even more. The note worthy players that some see not vote worthy (i.e. the DH and Closers) get even fewer votes because "I can only vote for 10". Those who could get voted in ( as a normal year easy in vote) don't because of the variety of "I can vote for only 10" creates a huge number of possibilities. This ripple, I predict will get worse and worse, till the point that is dumped on the oversight committee.

Jan 09, 2013 08:10 AM
rating: 1
 
bhalpern

Good points. Not the first time this kind of thing has come up though. If you haven't read it before you should check out Bill James's book on the HOF: http://www.amazon.com/Whatever-Happened-Hall-Fame-James/dp/0684800888

It's considerably out of date but still a worthwhile read.

Jan 09, 2013 10:15 AM
rating: 0
 
gjhardy

Sandy Alomar, Jr?

Jan 09, 2013 08:20 AM
rating: 2
 
mikebuetow

His career may be summed as the only candidate whose highest single season WARP was actually higher than his career WARP.

Jan 09, 2013 08:47 AM
rating: 6
 
BP staff member Russell A. Carleton
BP staff

Yeah, but 1997 was fun.

Jan 09, 2013 09:08 AM
 
Richard Bergstrom

HIs career might also be summed up as racking up the most frequent flyer mileage while on the disabled list.

Jan 09, 2013 10:22 AM
rating: 2
 
bhalpern

Ha. I actually know someone who's a frequent traveller in his field (unrelated to baseball) and once sat next to Sandy Alomar on a flight. And since my friend had a few knee surgeries himself they had something to talk about.

Jan 09, 2013 10:29 AM
rating: 3
 
Richard Bergstrom

Heh :)

Jan 09, 2013 20:39 PM
rating: -1
 
cdt719

He actually got 16 votes! I wonder how many of them confused him with Roberto.

Jan 09, 2013 13:14 PM
rating: 3
 
fbraconi

Cleary this HoF round brings the PEDs issue to the forefront, there's no avoiding that. But everybody seems to be looking for a golden rule regarding PEDs and I don't think there's one to be found. How about applying some judgment to this question?

I don't think somebody who succeeded through cheating alone should be enshrined as a baseball "great." But a lot of guys enhanced their indisputable skills in various unethical ways, whether by corking their bats, doctoring the ball, doping, etc. You can't keep them all out.

My problem with Bonds has always been his post-1999 performance. Until then, he was a legitimate Hall of Famer displaying a normal aging curve. Then, for the next eight years, he defied the aging curve that subdued all of his great predecessors. Not Mays, not Mantle, not Ruth, not Aaron, not Musial, not even Williams had the kick that Bonds had after the age of 35. And that at the very time there is strong evidence that he began using PEDs. I just find it hard to believe his unique late-career accomplishments were entirely natural and within the rules. (Same applies to Clemens.)

So based on strong but circumstantial evidence, I'd recognize that guys like Bonds and Clemens earned entrance to the Hall on their natural abilities and professional skill, but I wouldn't reward or revere them for cheating, or accept their accomplishments as 100% legitimate. They wouldn't be on my ballot the first year (or the first 10). Let them wait awhile.

Jan 09, 2013 09:45 AM
rating: 6
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

Great post! - you should audition here.

Jan 09, 2013 09:48 AM
rating: -5
 
Nick Wernham

I think that the overall order is pretty much right, but I might put Craig Biggio, Mike Piazza, or possibly Tim Raines ahead of Bagwell. It's awfully close though. On another note, I know that you can only put ten guys on your ballot, but it looks to me like there are thirteen candidates that are VERY EASILY deserving of enshrinement.

Jan 09, 2013 09:50 AM
rating: 0
 
Richard Bergstrom

I think no one will get in this year. The voters not voting for PED users will deny Bonds/Clemens and others like Biggio etc probably aren't famous enough for the casual BBWAA voter to even remember.

2014 will be real interesting too with a lot of good players who were not attached to PEDs (Thomas, Maddux, Glavine) etc. up for election with a lot of holdovers gumming up the ballot.

Jan 09, 2013 10:20 AM
rating: 2
 
sarsfield

This article demonstrates the reason why the BBWA won't include all writers from Baseball Prospectus in their organization.

Too many intelligent people.

Jan 09, 2013 10:38 AM
rating: -1
 
gbeat17

If nobody gets in, the BBWAA ought to be ashamed of its collective selves. The first 10 players on this list deserve enshrinement and everybody else on this list deserves serious debate. If they only took a few, so be it. But we are watching a complete travesty of the voters take "none of the above" out of this group of candidates.

Jan 09, 2013 10:45 AM
rating: 0
 
Richard Bergstrom

Its a bit of a crock anyway. Many of the voting writers now "banning" PED users from the Hall of Fame made their living writing about how the home run chase was great for baseball, sometimes even turning a blind eye to actually reporting on PEDs. Heck, the "Chicks Dig the Long Ball" commercial even had a creatine scene in there so it's not like people weren't thinking about PEDs.

Jan 09, 2013 10:55 AM
rating: 3
 
Richard Bergstrom

While we're on the subject of PEDs, I find it interesting how McGwire has lingered around while Canseco was pretty quickly blackballed from the voting.

Jan 09, 2013 11:01 AM
rating: 1
 
sbnirish77
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

The only enshrinement here is that of Baseball Prospectus into Hall of Shame as a PED apologist. Nice to get everyone on record though.

Jan 09, 2013 11:54 AM
rating: -11
 
Richard Bergstrom

snibirsh rears its minushead once again.

Jan 09, 2013 14:42 PM
rating: 0
 
apollo

There does seem to be an agenda. it is very strange.
Sort of like voting man as father of year for his good deeds when he cheated on his wife.

Jan 10, 2013 18:03 PM
rating: 0
 
BP staff member Jason Wojciechowski
BP staff

An agenda! Is BP just a front for BALCO?

Jan 10, 2013 18:04 PM
 
Richard Bergstrom

It's always the quiet ones.

Jan 10, 2013 19:29 PM
rating: 0
 
jashnew

I'm extremely angry at the baseball writers. Craig Biggio a player with over 3000 hits is not a first ballot HOF. I guarantee you if he played for the Yankees, Mets, or Cubs he would be in. Everybody would be talking how great he was. This is a sad day for baseball. How dare they.

Jan 09, 2013 11:55 AM
rating: 7
 
RaysProf

The vast majority of individuals inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame are from Major League Baseball. And MLB, first and foremost, is a for-profit form of entertainment. We watch the games, analyze the results and study it because it entertains us and for some, provides income. In the end, I fail to see why we should celebrate the performances of those who highly profited from or were possibly exploited by this profession. We should recognize that what counts here is entertainment.

However, there is one important aspect to this year's slate of candidates that provides a serious benefit to society: it provides a wonderful example of the misuse of evidence based analysis, i.e., that which we deem the difference between science and the non-sciences. The arguments both for, but usually in opposition to those who are suspected of using "performance enhancing drugs" (the quotes are important) provide ample examples of HNTDS - how NOT to do science. Most examples of HNTDS are in the form of single-data point correlation equals cause, and "it is obvious", but some of the better ones are effect-is-entirely-due-to-one-source.

In the field of science education, we have often spent most of our time educating students on techniques, such as how to pipette, draw force diagrams, etc., and little time on helping them understand what science is and how to conduct it properly. One reason is that easy to access examples are not plentiful. But this year, and particularly this year, we have rich source of examples of where people with absolutely no understanding of biomechanics, physiology and/or pharmacology are spouting on about both one time legal and illegal synthetic and natural fluids which they claim are the source or not the source for a few events that are overly celebrated.

So thank you to this year's candidates to the HoF and those who have written about it. You have made an important contribution to the field of education and science - two areas we should be discussing and celebrating. (Of course while we entertain ourselves with a for-profit profession.)

Jan 09, 2013 12:06 PM
rating: 3
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

What I find amazing us that lance Armstrong is banned for life from any firm of athletic competition, has all of his titles stripped from him, will quite possibly go to prison and will soon be bankrupt having to pay back 10 to 30 million dollars whilst........

Barry bonds should be feted as a great athlete by being voted into the HOF.

Jan 09, 2013 12:07 PM
rating: -9
 
BP staff member Colin Wyers
BP staff

If I am sure of anything, it's that I don't want Major League Baseball to do to itself what professional cycling has done to itself.

Jan 09, 2013 12:11 PM
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

You mean rout out dopers?

Jan 09, 2013 12:21 PM
rating: -10
 
BP staff member Colin Wyers
BP staff

Have they really done that, though? Doping is widely prevalent in what's left of the sport after repeated attempts at eating themselves from the tail up.

Jan 09, 2013 12:29 PM
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

Well the times up the big alpine climbs was much slower than a few years ago, like 10 per cent slower. You can use mathematical formulae based on the riders weight and him time up certain climbs to basically indicate where a guy is doping. Greg LeMondbis a big proponent if it.

Jan 09, 2013 12:51 PM
rating: -5
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

Trust me ped's are an insidious cancer eating away at a sport. Cycling is now fun to watch again for the first time since the realisation that epo was rampant in the late 90s

Jan 09, 2013 13:02 PM
rating: -5
 
BP staff member Jason Parks
BP staff

Trust me that cycling has never been fun to watch.

Jan 09, 2013 13:05 PM
 
bhalpern

Can we take this as confirmation that our hopes and dreams for a Cycling Prospectus have come to nought?

Jan 09, 2013 13:14 PM
rating: 9
 
andrews

Lol we Europeans don't really get American football either, love commercial breaks, but hey we're just cheese eating surrender monkeys :-)

Jan 09, 2013 13:22 PM
rating: -2
 
andrews

The tragedy with bonds is he was such a brilliant player he didn't need to do it.

Jan 09, 2013 13:17 PM
rating: -1
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

Well thank god he didn't get in, I hope he never does.

Jan 09, 2013 13:33 PM
rating: -5
 
NJTomatoes

Results show significant levels of sabermetrician group think.

Jan 09, 2013 13:40 PM
rating: 2
 
andrews

Exactly, well said.

Jan 09, 2013 14:10 PM
rating: -2
 
BP staff member Doug Thorburn
BP staff

That is one interpretation, though I find it somewhat dubious to project one's intentions based on a list of names, without the author's explanation. I was surprised to learn that there was such a consensus among the selections of my BP brethren, but I am willing to bet that we all have different reasons for our choices.

There are two boundaries: "PED's don't matter for HoF voting" on one side, and "any whiff of PED's = no HoF" on the other. In between those boundaries is a murky grey area of vague options, and my guess is that many of us lie on different parts of that spectrum. Personally, I applied a discount to the numbers of confirmed users, but I also felt that the best power hitters of the generation still deserved enshrinement.

You can disagree with the opinion, but it is a misinterpretation of the results to presume that we are all like-minded individuals forming a united front.

Jan 09, 2013 17:12 PM
 
ddufourlogger

Very well said, Doug.

Jan 10, 2013 08:37 AM
rating: 0
 
jonvanderlugt

I'm not sure that this is groupthink so much as it is a group of writers that think similar things. That sounds redundant, but if the writers on BP didn't hold at least similar views to a lot of what the site was founded on, they'd be writing elsewhere.

It's like saying that a group of Republicans getting together and discussing their Republican ideas is groupthink. Same for Democrats. Or people that like the same music. If the Pokemon club at my college happens to agree upon a particular strategy, does it make that groupthink?

BP has, and probably generally will be, a group of like-minded individuals that want to put out baseball content based on what they believe. To criticize a group for having similar ideas is ridiculous.

Jan 09, 2013 21:06 PM
rating: 3
 
R.A.Wagman

Thankfully, PEDs did not (and could not) ruin baseball.
Unfortunately, PEDs absolutely destroyed baseball journalism. Thank God for internet baseball analysis - filling the void left by grandstanding baseball journalists since 1997.

Jan 09, 2013 15:43 PM
rating: 2
 
eliyahu

R.A., I agree with you. But this thread has me thinking that the tide is shifting. I was attracted to Sabermetrics in the early 80s, in part, because of Bill James's willingness to think differently than the conventional style. Based on the comments in this thread on this sabermetrically-inclined site, there is an astonishing groupthink that all PED users should be allowed because we can't keep all of them out. I don't pretend to know what the right thing is to do, but the collective certainty that many on this board are demonstrating (including a staffer or two) is.....surprising.

And please spare me all the apologistic notes cited so often; if it wasn't cheating, people wouldn't hide it. And for those that say that there's no proof against Clemens because he wasn't found guilty in court....you must think that Lance Armstrong is innocent as well because he never failed a test.

One more point, because Armstrong has been brought up above. Armstrong was one of the best cyclists in the world before he started cheating -- analogous to Bonds and Clemens. But now he is disgraced -- and deservedly so. I can only be left to conclude that 90+ percent of the staffers here (and a similar number of readers) are convinced that Armstrong belongs in the cycling equivalent of the HOF. I, for one, am glad that the general public disagrees with that.

Jan 09, 2013 16:43 PM
rating: 5
 
BP staff member Jason Wojciechowski
BP staff

I don't get the idea that because a bunch (a relatively small bunch, really!) of people agree, it's groupthink.

Jan 09, 2013 16:45 PM
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

But a remarkably high proportion of people here. What's most galling is that dissenting views are ridiculed and stamped down so everyone can revert to that happy state where we all agree.
What was it?
4 legs good, 2 legs bad.
4 legs good, 2 legs bad....

Jan 09, 2013 16:53 PM
rating: -8
 
BP staff member Jason Wojciechowski
BP staff

Whether it's the writers or the writers+commenters, groupthink is, as you say, about the group agreeing for the sake of agreement and harmony. What evidence is there that saber-inspired fans want harmony? Aren't we the most argumentative people there are?

I do think there's some overminusing of comments going on, but consider how few minuses it takes to hide something.

Jan 09, 2013 16:58 PM
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

Hi Jason, as you seem to be monitoring this thread now, I'd like an ifficial BP response to the insulting twitter feed I've just posted please.
Thank you

Jan 09, 2013 17:03 PM
rating: -4
 
BP staff member Jason Wojciechowski
BP staff

I don't want to leave you hanging, but there are also a whole lot of people (all of whom have the power to fire me) who'd be mad if I suddenly started speaking officially on behalf of BP, so I can't really do that. Sorry.

Jan 09, 2013 17:07 PM
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

I understand your predicament but I am not going to drop this @veryannoyed!

Jan 09, 2013 17:10 PM
rating: -4
 
eliyahu

Jason,

This has nothing to do with what the bar is for hiding a comment, and it's not a small group of people. This may end up being both the most commented and minused thread in BP's august history. And what is all the vitriol directed at? The suggestion that confirmed cheaters should be banned from the HOF.

I agree that some of Andrews's comments may be needlessly antagonistic, but I must say that I identify with his general approach much more than the "since steroids didn't help everybody, I refuse to acknowledge that steroids helped some people disproportionately" line toed by too many above.

Jan 09, 2013 17:19 PM
rating: 0
 
BP staff member Jason Wojciechowski
BP staff

The evidence of "groupthink" appears to amount to "people agree." That's not what groupthink is.

Jan 09, 2013 17:23 PM
 
gweedoh565

I can say, as someone who has wasted most of the day minusing andrews' comments, that the minusing has nothing to do with his stance on PED users and everything to do with presentation.

Jan 09, 2013 17:31 PM
rating: 3
 
andrews

Judging from the twitter feeds many of the commentators that are pro ped's don't matter are friends of the staffers!

Jan 09, 2013 17:25 PM
rating: 0
 
NJTomatoes

Let me attempt to explain my original statement. I see “group think” and “confirmation bias” as being strongly related.

I didn’t mean to imply that an actual overt movement to opine and express in a collective fashion took place. Rather, when members of any organization/club/ company are involved in a common pursuit on an ongoing basis, there’s a real human tendency to solidify around points of view – not absolutely, but certainly around core thoughts or principles. Otherwise, the people wouldn’t be a true part of that internal community. So, did the BP writers “conspire” to present a united front on their votes? Certainly not. But, they did fall into a pattern driven by one of their core unifying characteristics – sabermetric analysis. By this I mean, a strong preference (orthodoxy?) for judgement based on the statistical over the instinctual/gut/emotional.

As a fan who values both sides of the coin – and frankly see extremely valid arguments on both sides of the black-and-white debate over this year’s HOF/PED debacle – I value exercising judgment that honors both hemispheres of thought. (I do have the best all-time win-loss record in the eight-year old fantasy league that I participate in, so I know something, right? ;-)

I guess what I’m trying to say is, with 33 ballots cast, I would have expected a higher percentage of doubters when it came to Bonds and Clemens specifically. 90+% support levels shows a lower level of diversity of thought than I would expect from a group of lovers of the game.

I am not out to prove I am right, I am merely attempting to more clearly express myself.

PS – this whole string of comments and debate points has been very cool. Perfect example of why I love BP!

Jan 10, 2013 11:12 AM
rating: 2
 
andrews

Excellent, wish I was as eloquent as you!

Jan 09, 2013 16:46 PM
rating: 0
 
sbnirish77

The Apologist's Bible ... where do you fall?


1. Steroids have no effect upon perfromance.

2. The effect of steroids can't be quantified.

3. Even if the effect of steroids could be quantified on an individual basis, there is no way to quantify the effect across MLB.

4. Even if we could quantify the effect across MLB, the numbers of users is so small that its not worth worrying about.

5. Even if the numbers of users was large enough to make a difference, both pitchers and hitters were users, so the effect is a wash to the game.

6. Even if steroids did have an effect on the game, isn't it better for the game if we just turn the page and move on?

7. Who Cares?

Jan 09, 2013 15:44 PM
rating: -3
 
Richard Bergstrom

Nice to see you bought yourself a copy since nothing you said is all that original.

Jan 09, 2013 15:56 PM
rating: 0
 
sbnirish77

Your right Richard .. all theses excuses have been used here at BP at one time or another.

The next one is going to be that there were so many people useing PEDS that we can't sort it out.

So we've gone from a few isolated cases to everyone was doing it.

Jan 09, 2013 16:25 PM
rating: -3
 
Richard Bergstrom

I didn't do it. Thought about trying once but I thought it would make me cranky.

Jan 09, 2013 20:41 PM
rating: -1
 
silviomossa

The Witchhunter's Bible.... where do you fall?

1. Steriods are the only effect upon performance.

2. The effect of steriods can be quantified.... by me. (just don't ask to see the math)

3. Player X has big muscles, so he used steroids.

4. Player Y has a acne, so he used steroids.

5. Player Z had an outlier year, so he used steriods.

6. Player Q never tested positive, was never implicated in any report, was never brought before a jury or panel of any kind. His numbers are outstanding. But Mr. Writer knows someone who knows someone who knows someone who thinks he might've juiced. And that's good enough for me.

Jan 09, 2013 16:01 PM
rating: 9
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

Usn't it comforting to know that to while away the team the BP staffers like making snide comments about their subscribers via twitter

Paul Sporer ‏@sporer
What is the record for most negative votes in a @baseballpro discussion thread, @ben_lindbergh @JHamrahi? I think "andrews" is Bondsing it.

Expand Collapse Reply RetweetedRetweet
Delete
FavoritedFavorite
1
Retweet 1
Favorite 8:22 AM - 9 Jan 13 · Details
Tweet text Reply to @sporer @baseballpro @ben_lindbergh @JHamrahi
@
Reply to @sporer @baseballpro @ben_lindbergh @JHamrahi
Image will appear as a link Add Photo Add location 85Tweet
7h Joe Hamrahi ‏@JHamrahi
@sporer @baseballpro @ben_lindbergh Ha! I'm avoiding the comments for a while

Details Expand Collapse Reply RetweetedRetweet Delete FavoritedFavorite
7h Bryan ‏@bgrosnick
@sporer @baseballpro @ben_lindbergh @JHamrahi If he's "Bondsing" then I have to assume he's using some sort of performance-enhancing drug.

Details Expand Collapse Reply RetweetedRetweet
Delete
FavoritedFavorite 7h Paul Sporer ‏@sporer
@bgrosnick @baseballpro @ben_lindbergh @JHamrahi BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN??????

Details Expand Collapse Reply RetweetedRetweet Delete FavoritedFavorite
7h Joe Hamrahi ‏@JHamrahi
@sporer I know! I hope my son hasn't read the article yet! I may have to bring him to therapy!

Details Expand Collapse Reply RetweetedRetweet Delete FavoritedFavorite
7h Paul Sporer ‏@sporer
@JHamrahi LOL. You have a long road ahead. Bc it's not you and your wife raising him, it's the decisions of baseball players.

Jan 09, 2013 16:18 PM
rating: -5
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

Guys, insulting your paying customers is never a good idea, even if you think they deserve it.

google Gerald Ratner

You should be ashamed - or more discret ;-)

Jan 09, 2013 16:22 PM
rating: -6
 
Mr. Cthulhu

Well, if insulting you drives you cancel your subscription and out of the comment section I'll buy two subscriptions next year to make up for the lost revenues.

I'm not even joking. Bill my credit card twice B-pro, you have my permission. Just drive him away.



Jan 09, 2013 19:18 PM
rating: 6
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

You should be so lucky but please pay twice anyway.
I don't mind being insulted by idiots like you, it's being insulted by paid BP staffers that i found annoying.

Jan 09, 2013 19:27 PM
rating: -4
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

why don't you all tweet each other to all hit "-" so this gets hidden.......

Jan 09, 2013 16:28 PM
rating: -6
 
silviomossa

Wow, what a smoking gun you've found.

Jan 09, 2013 16:31 PM
rating: 3
 
silviomossa

Ooops, meant to type !!!!!!!! after that.

Jan 09, 2013 16:33 PM
rating: 3
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

You think, I'll probably be 'banned' for being the victim of puerile little in jokes by the staffers.

Jan 09, 2013 16:35 PM
rating: -6
 
BurrRutledge

That's right. You're the victim here. It's not about the children at all.

Jan 09, 2013 17:14 PM
rating: 3
 
andrews
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

Oh the poor children!

Jan 09, 2013 17:19 PM
rating: -6
 
apollo

Andrews, thanks for sticking up for common sense. It is fascinating to see your comments shouted down, like they are afraid of a different opinion, yet they're the ones with the smarts. Then blaming it on the software that your posts become hidden because of the minuses! Who's in charge of the software? It is disappointing to see those love the game, honor cheaters who have dishonored the game at its core (and then blame it on sportswriters ). Let's vote for Woody Allen as father of the year; he adopted a child, something i have never done or will do.

Jan 10, 2013 18:32 PM
rating: 0
 
BP staff member Joe Hamrahi
BP staff

Ok, that's enough please everyone. I don't mind if we discuss our view points and disagree. Everyone knows by now that I disagree with most everything that went on today. But, let's not make this a public attack forum. I made the mistake of thinking the discussion on twitter was a general stance on ideology. I WAS WRONG not to notice it was started by being directed at Andrews. That's on me, and I take responsibility for missing that. Had I caught that originally, I would not have responded, AND I would have shut down the thread. We all have a lot of ideas. Today was a passionate day. But let's try to show our passion with respect. It's not going to do any good to take our frustrations out on anyone else. Please show some sanity as a community.

It's been a very long day, but if you want to discuss this with me further, you can always email me at jhamrahi at baseballprospectus.com. I'll be happy to continue the dialogue.

Jan 09, 2013 19:37 PM
 
Richard Bergstrom

Has a thread ever been shut down, out of curiosity?

Jan 09, 2013 20:34 PM
rating: 0
 
jdeich

Of these two things:
A) One person is allowed to hijack an article's comments with 60+ repetitive replies.
B) That person is mocked publicly by BP staff.

BP should be asking which of these two things is the bigger problem.

(Most) brick-and-mortar stores do not follow "The customer is always right!" when one customer is yelling and making unreasonable demands, even if it is a paying customer. I don't know why businesses whose product is "articles and discussion" would not follow that precedent.

Jan 11, 2013 12:39 PM
rating: -1
 
Richard Bergstrom

I wouldn't call what andrews said as repetitive or, worse, spam. He did spend time typing up his thoughts and it's not like he copied and pasted the same text over and over again.
Besides, getting minused constantly adds to the frustration and prompts more posting. andrews really hasn't said anything "worse" than anyone else has said.

If you are suggesting he gets muted or his subscription gets cancelled, I think that sets a dangerous precedent.

That being said, both things you listed are problems and both appear to be resolved as of now... perhaps everyone even learned a bit from it.

Jan 11, 2013 14:35 PM
rating: -1
 
andrews

It appears not Richard - if anyone who holds a view that dissents from the majority view should they be silenced or their subscription cancelled.

I was challenged by numerous members and staff and asked to both defend my statements and to offer proof to support them - partly why i posted so often.

Feelings were running high and I'll admit I was one of several who got a bit carried away - lessons have been learnt.

However, it is more than worrying if the answer to anyone holding a dissenting view is to label them as "unreasonable" and to propose they are silenced.

Jan 14, 2013 07:23 AM
rating: 0
 
Richard Bergstrom

andrews, I'm not sure how long you've been with BP, but I do know I've commented thousands of times more than you have and I often dissent. I even posted once during BP Idol whether people wanted me to stop commenting just because I was posting so much. I've vehemently disagreed with authors, points of view, and in the past, complained publicly about where BP seemed to be headed. Never was I asked to cancel my subscription. There are room for dissenters, you aren't the first, and definitely won't be the last.

That being said, don't confuse people saying "slow down!" with people disagreeing with your view. You've started up a lot of posts within this thread and you haven't always replied in line. It is hard to follow what you are saying since one thought will be in one thread, then continued in another thread. If anything, people aren't objecting to your views as much as they are objecting with the way you've gone about it. So, feel free to dissent, but try to be more concise about it.

Jan 14, 2013 09:01 AM
rating: 1
 
andrews

Yes, agreed and thanks to the handful of members who were sympathetic in the face of the storm of criticism ;-)

In terms if my length of service, check my membership number, I've been here a long long time...... peace.

Jan 14, 2013 15:25 PM
rating: -1
 
Richard Bergstrom

Likewise.

And yeah, I know about the membership numbers :)

Jan 14, 2013 16:10 PM
rating: 0
 
andrews

Did you really spend your time counting my posts in this column? Were there really 60 posts?

Are you suggesting there should be an upper limit on the number of posts that are allowed? And if so, how low would you set the bar?

Jan 14, 2013 03:42 AM
rating: -1
 
andrews

ps I was informed that this column had been locked - but if people want to re-open things by attacking me again I will defend myself.

I'd much rather we let this lie and move on.

Jan 14, 2013 03:45 AM
rating: -1
 
BP staff member Paul Sporer
BP staff

I'd like to echo Joe's comments and add my apologies. I went a bit too far after getting caught up in the moment trying to crack wise and didn't consider David's (andrews' first name) feelings in light of such jokes. I'm sorry for adding to the devolution of this convo thread.

Jan 09, 2013 20:07 PM
 
apbadogs

I just read 90+ "new" comments that were nothing but whining. :-

Jan 10, 2013 09:41 AM
rating: 0
 
Richard Bergstrom

I just read 1 "new" comment that was nothing but whining. :)

Jan 10, 2013 10:25 AM
rating: 3
 
mdthomp

No vote for Aaron Sele?

Jan 10, 2013 11:43 AM
rating: 0
 
BP staff member Jason Parks
BP staff

I only vote for PED users. When I signed my groupthink contract with BP, I was given a list of PED users to champion on social platforms. Sele wasn't on that list. I can't deviate from the group. I won't deviate from the group. The group is good. The group keeps me safe. I hope the group is reading this. I hope the group loves me.

Jan 10, 2013 12:11 PM
 
BP staff member Jason Wojciechowski
BP staff

/hugs

Jan 10, 2013 12:12 PM
 
BP staff member Joe Hamrahi
BP staff

We do love you, and that's why we're even letting you do another podcast. Wait, maybe I should actually rethink that.

Jan 10, 2013 12:16 PM
 
BP staff member Jason Parks
BP staff

Martin Kove and the Baseball Hot Stove

Jan 10, 2013 13:25 PM
 
You must be a Premium subscriber to post a comment.
Not a subscriber? Sign up today!
<< Previous Article
The Lineup Card: 10 Me... (01/09)
Next Article >>
Fantasy Article The Keeper Reaper: Sta... (01/10)

RECENTLY AT BASEBALL PROSPECTUS
Fantasy Article TTO Scoresheet Podcast: Episode 57
Fantasy Article Free Agent Watch: Week Nine
West Coast By Us: Yo
Premium Article Minor League Update: Games of Thursday, May ...
Premium Article Rubbing Mud: Context is King
Premium Article Daisy Cutter: How the Kipnis Got His TAv
Premium Article Release Points: Where Have You Gone, Stephen...

MORE FROM JANUARY 9, 2013
Premium Article Transaction Analysis: The Nationals (Finally...
Premium Article Skewed Left: The Worst Parts of Last Season'...
Premium Article Out of Left Field: Jumping the Gun on 2013 P...
Premium Article Rumor Roundup: Wednesday, January 9
Premium Article Sobsequy: Baseball, Power Pop, and Playing A...
Fantasy Article Fantasy Beat: Esmil Rogers, Fantasy Sleeper
Fantasy Article The Keeper Reaper: Relievers for 1/9/13

MORE BY BASEBALL PROSPECTUS
2013-01-30 - The Lineup Card: Six Contract Incentives tha...
2013-01-23 - The Lineup Card: Nine Regression Candidates ...
2013-01-16 - The Lineup Card: 11 Comeback Player of the Y...
2013-01-09 - Hall of Fame Voting
2013-01-09 - The Lineup Card: 10 Memories of Hall of Fame...
2013-01-02 - The Lineup Card: 8 Baseball Resolutions
2012-12-19 - The Lineup Card: 8 Gifts for a Baseball Fan
More...


INCOMING ARTICLE LINKS
2013-01-11 - Premium Article Raising Aces: The Good Old Days: Roger Cleme...
2013-01-10 - On the Beat: A Change in the Process
2013-01-10 - Premium Article Baseball Therapy: Lessons from the Hall of F...
2013-01-10 - Premium Article Pebble Hunting: When the Teams That Don't Ha...
2013-01-10 - Fantasy Article Resident Fantasy Genius: The Voting Travesty