Why is Buster abstaining?

[clocsta2323]

It won't let me read the rest :(

Insider pisses me off.

[death2redemptions]

Buster who?

[Devi8or]

Buster who?

I think he's talking about Buster Olney obstaining from the HOF voting

[Hollywood42]

Yep. I just saw the headline

I think he's talking about Buster Olney obstaining from the HOF voting

[freddyb]

Because he's trying to make it all about him

[clocsta2323]

Yep. I just saw the headline

Yeah. I just don't get that even though he feels players (Moose/Schilling/etc) are HoF worthy he wouldn't vote for them. Wanted to read the whole article but I will never put a CC# into ESPN.com.

[enbambam6986]

Because he's trying to make it all about him

lol That is why no one has insider. #espnsucks

[noryan34]

Because he's trying to make it all about him

Tried to read through the article, just couldnt. But in a nutshell its because he can only vote for 10 guys a year and the rule hasnt been changed..blah blah blah

Is it just me or has he gotten real politicky about baseball over the last couple years?

[jewcer2k5]

lol That is why no one has insider. #espnsucks

I DO! Its not expensive.


Mike Mussina spent each of his 18 seasons in the most treacherous waters pitchers have ever faced, among the whitecaps of what will always be remembered as an era of rampant steroid use -- and in the offense-rich American League East, no less. He was a fly ball pitcher who called two homer-happy ballparks -- Camden Yards and Yankee Stadium -- his home during his career.

It’s as if he navigated his way daily through one of those monstrous marble-hard golf courses in Scotland covered with bunkers that have names (such as St. Andrews' Road Hole Bunker), as compared to the Executive Par-3s of 2014. In 2000, Mussina’s last season with the Orioles, 47 hitters mashed 30 or more homers; in 2014, only 11 batters reached 30 homers.

Mussina finished his career with a 3.68 ERA and is 19th all time in strikeouts. He also is 24th in WAR among pitchers, and most of the guys ahead of him on the list are in the Hall of Fame.

But his chances for induction will improve slightly this year because I’m abstaining from the voting for the first time, and won’t submit a ballot. The same is true for Curt Schilling, and Tim Raines, and at least two others who I think should be inducted into the Hall of Fame.

To repeat: I think Mussina, Schilling and Raines and others are Hall of Famers, but it’s better for their candidacy if I don’t cast a ballot.

If that sounds backward, well, that’s how the Hall of Fame voting has evolved, squeezed between rules that badly need to be updated and the progression of the candidates linked to the use of performance-enhancing drugs. The process needs to be pruned to allow voters to get back to answering a simple question about each candidate: Was his career worthy of the Hall of Fame?

When I started covering Major League Baseball, getting the opportunity to participate in the Hall of Fame voting was something to really look forward to, a nice carrot through the long days of spring training, the travel delays of the summer and extra-inning games. After being a member of the Baseball Writers' Association of America for 10 years, receiving a blank Hall of Fame ballot for the first time, with voting instructions and pages of notes on each candidate also in the envelope, carried the same excitement as receiving a thick college admission letter.

So it's incredible that declining to cast a ballot is even a consideration. But in light of where we are, it seems like the right thing to do for the candidates involved, until the rules are adjusted.

For years, the rule that each writer can vote for no more than 10 candidates was probably irrelevant; it certainly was for me, given that I usually voted for anywhere from four to seven players. It's not clear why the "Rule of 10" was put in place, but I suspect it was originally designed to prevent writers from flooding their ballots with names of players who had no chance of being elected, just so they could report to their buddy that they had voted for them.

A decade ago, nobody could have anticipated the quandary that has developed because of this rule, and because of the debate surrounding the steroid-era candidates.

[+] EnlargeMark McGwire
Peter Newcomb/AFP/Getty Images
Mark McGwire received just 11 percent of the Hall of Fame votes last year.
Mark McGwire first appeared on the ballot in December 2006, five years after he retired, and he became the first real test case for what the voters would do with players either directly linked with performance-enhancing drugs or suspected of doing them.

As written in this space many times, I think all players should be judged within the context of the era in which they played, and during McGwire's career, the sport was saturated with performance-enhancing drugs, largely because over the period of about 15 years, no one within the institution of baseball -- not the union leaders, not MLB owners, not the commissioner, not the clean players, nor the media that covered the sport -- aggressively addressed the growing problem. Through that inaction, what evolved was a chemical Frankenstein of a game. Like it or not, that's what the sport was in that time: no drug testing, lots of drug use, lots of drug users, lots of money being made by everybody. (And by the way, no team, baseball executive or player has offered to give back the money made in that time.)

The idea of retroactive morality is ridiculous, especially given that the folks in the sport had a strong idea by the mid-'90s that there was a growing problem and nobody did anything about it. Here's Jose Canseco being asked about his steroid use on national television before the 1988 playoffs, right after Olympic sprinter Ben Johnson was stripped of his gold medal. And here's a Bob Nightengale story from 1995 in which then-interim commissioner Bud Selig was asked about the problem, and made mention of a "private meeting" the year before. Yet serious testing and penalties really weren't in place until 2006.

McGwire was a star during that time, with 583 homers, including his record-setting 70 homers in 1998, so I voted for him. That was a minority opinion, for sure: 23.5 percent of the 545 voters cast ballots for him, far short of the 75 percent needed for induction, but more than the 5 percent required to remain on the ballot. The McGwire test case continued, however, because his candidacy carried over to the next ballot, and so did that of Rafael Palmeiro and others, until they became stacked up like planes on a runway, their Hall of Fame situation stuck in a weird sort of purgatory.

This is how the rule that limits writers to 10 players became a serious problem. Roger Clemens became eligible, and Barry Bonds. Jeff Bagwell and Mike Piazza also hit the ballot, and while there is no indisputable evidence of steroid use by those two as there is for Palmeiro, who was suspended in 2005 after a positive test, a high number of voters apparently withheld votes for them because of suspicion of PED use. The career numbers for Bagwell and Piazza are overwhelmingly worthy for Hall of Fame election, but Bagwell has never finished higher than 59.6 percent in his four years on the ballot; Piazza, the all-time leader in homers for catchers, got only 57.8 percent of the vote in his first year.

So the list of serious candidates grew well beyond 10 spots. Last year I counted 17 players I thought were Hall of Fame-worthy, from Greg Maddux to Tom Glavine to Craig Biggio. But because of the Rule of 10, I had to leave off seven players who I believe are of Hall of Fame caliber. That included Mussina, Schilling and Raines. For the first time since McGwire became eligible, I didn't cast a vote for him.

The way I picked among the 17 was to rank them in order among the first nine, from the best player on down, regardless of the PED question. I also included Jack Morris, who was in his last year of eligibility; I wanted to give Morris a fair last shot with my ballot, knowing that Mussina, Raines, Schilling and Jeff Kent probably would get enough votes to stay on the ballot for this winter.

But really, that didn't seem right, because there's nothing in the voting rules that suggest I should weigh the candidates against each other, or must consider the landscape of the ballot. There is no guidance for picking 10 players from a 17-man field of worthy candidates. There is only this:
"Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

The practical reality was that I wasn't deciding on whether to vote for Mussina based on career performance. My vote was predicated entirely on his standing among an extraordinary volume of candidates, from Maddux to Glavine to Bonds to Piazza to Frank Thomas. (Let's again dismiss the notion that the "character" was ever used by writers as a serious criterion for election before McGwire's name appeared on the 2007 ballot. We all know the stories about some of the racists, alleged cheats, drunkards and PED users who already are in the Hall of Fame.)

And while I think Schilling and Mussina are Hall of Fame-worthy, my ballot hurt them. My ballot counted against their percentage. Five hundred seventy-one voters cast ballots last year, and my ballot was among the 450 that didn't have Mussina included, which lowered his percentage.

That makes no sense.

The Rule of 10 seemed to factor heavily in the voting last year, dragging down the vote percentages for everyone from Morris to Clemens to Alan Trammell, whose numbers plummeted from 33.6 percent of the vote to just 20.6 percent. Clearly Trammell wasn't being judged based on his career; he lost votes last winter because of the choices made under the Rule of 10.

Maddux was a slam-dunk candidate after posting 355 career wins and four Cy Young Awards, but he was left off 16 ballots entirely. I don't know who all of those 16 were, but a couple of writers mentioned to me privately that in dealing with the confines of the ballot limit, they thought about not voting for Maddux and Glavine, knowing that they'd probably get in anyway. It would be a shame to think that Maddux lost any votes because of the Rule of 10 problem.

During the summer, the Hall of Fame adjusted some of its rules. Voters are now required to register to receive a ballot, writers can lose the right to vote, and players could remain on the ballot for a shorter period of time.

Surprisingly, however, the Rule of 10 was not altered. The same impossible math remains: I'm counting 15 worthy candidates right now for those 10 spots. Other writers are telling me they see anywhere from 12 to 20 worthy candidates, which means that in their eyes, they'll be leaving players they feel are Hall of Fame-worthy off their ballots. It means that as great as Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez were -- both should be unanimous, in light of their accomplishments -- they might lose votes as writers struggle with the question of how to deal with the ballot guideline that seems completely arbitrary. (Why not a ballot limit of 11? Why not 12? Why not eight? Why not six? Is it 10 only because it's a round number?)

Maybe I should've figured it out last year, but this puzzle cannot be solved. There's no way to judge each candidate strictly on his merits given the current ballot limitations, no fair way to vote.

I can't stand the protest ballots we've seen in the past, when someone signs a blank ballot that counts as a vote against all candidates. That's unfair. I've hated to hear the stories of voters who haven't voted for a player because they didn't like them personally. The voting shouldn't be about the writer; it should be only about the players and whether they're worthy of induction.

And I can't stand the idea of casting a ballot that works against players that I think should be inducted, such as Mussina, Schilling or others. So as much as it has been an honor in the past to participate in the voting, I'll abstain, and hope that in the future the rules change.

Wednesday's moves

[+] EnlargeNick Markakis
Patrick Smith/Getty Images
Right fielder Nick Markakis reportedly will sign with the Atlanta Braves for what is believed to be four years and around $45 million.
• The Braves agreed to terms with Nick Markakis. The Orioles' bigger holes just got bigger, writes Peter Schmuck.

This has been a bad week for the Orioles, writes Roch Kubatko. O's shortstop J.J. Hardy says everybody thought Markakis would return.

The bottom line: Because of concerns about whether Markakis would hold up, the Orioles limited their offer to three years and wouldn't go to a fourth year. The Braves did, while placing a deadline on their offer.

Atlanta adds a Gold Glover to its outfield mix, creating more flexibility as it weighs trade possibilities involving Justin Upton.

• The Jays' offseason reconstruction continues with the addition of Michael Saunders. That deal seems to close down a possible return of Melky Cabrera, who might fit in Seattle or Kansas City. The Royals want him, though it'd have to be at the right price.

The Mariners' deal for J.A. Happ would seem to create some rotation flexibility for them to help with their possible pursuit of a hitter such as Justin Upton.

Here's what the Seattle lineup might look like with Upton, who is eligible for free agency after next season:

Austin Jackson, CF
Justin Upton, RF
Robinson Cano, 2B
Nelson Cruz, DH
Kyle Seager, 3B
Logan Morrison, 1B
Mike Zunino, C
Dustin Ackley, LF
Chris Taylor, SS

Saunders is Canadian, as Richard Griffin notes.

Hot Stove buzz

• The Yankees are continuing their pursuit of Andrew Miller. The Yankees could be Kansas City copycats, writes Joel Sherman. It looks as though the Red Sox are out on Miller.

• The Astros are likely out of the running for a top reliever, writes Evan Drellich. That sort of signing really wouldn't make sense at this stage of the team's development.

• Torii Hunter says he still has some bullets left. New Twins manager Paul Molitor is a strong booster of the Hunter signing, writes Sid Hartman.

• The Dodgers' preference in adding a high-end pitcher is to spend money rather than swap one of its best prospects, which is why it's unlikely the team will deal for Cole Hamels any time in the near future. The Phillies would want a good package of prospects in return for Hamels, and rightly so.

As for James Shields, that's a different story. Same with Jon Lester.

Remember, it makes sense for the Dodgers to at least appear to enter the Lester sweepstakes to push the Giants to spend more, in case San Francisco wins the bidding. If the Dodgers are serious, as Rob Bradford and Alex Speier are reporting, and they win, this is what the L.A. rotation would look like:

Clayton Kershaw
Zack Greinke
Jon Lester
Hyun-Jin Ryu
Dan Haren

Which would be pretty good.

• The Royals are close to signing Luke Hochevar.

AL East

• Kevin Cash met with the Rays.

AL Central

• The Indians are talking about a possible deal for Brandon Moss.

AL West

• Kyle Seager is a $100 million role model, writes Larry Stone.

NL East

• The Phillies denied a report about David Montgomery.

• Bob Brookover asks the same question in this column that rival GMs have been asking: Who is running the Phillies?

NL Central

• With the acquisition of Matt Belisle and Jordan Walden, Carlos Martinez will get a shot as a starter.

• Chris Heisey had his chances with the Reds, writes Hal McCoy.

• In the Cubs' Wrigley renovation, the team is getting guidance from the National Park Service.

Lastly

• Derek Jeter toured the ballpark in Miami the other day, which makes sense. Jeter, whose home is in Florida, has never made a secret of his desire to buy into a team someday, and perhaps he's looking into the possibility of owning a share. Additionally, Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria has always been enamored of the Yankees.

• Barry Larkin has a basketball tip for his son.

• Kobe Bryant's shooting statistics continue to astound. He ranks 99th of 102 shooters in 3-point percentage at 28.1 percent, and right near the bottom in 2-point field goal percentage as well, at 42.5 percent. Yet he has taken 78 more shots than any other player in the league, only five players have more turnovers, and only a dozen players have a worse assist-to-turnover ratio.

It's like watching a train wreck in progress without anybody really saying anything about it.

• Justin Morneau won an award.

And today will be better than yesterday.

[mgugs46]

He's a moron and thinks not voting helps the guys who would get bounced off by voting for others stay on the ballot longer. Or some nonsense like that. Apparently he feels like everyone is a HOFer since he counted 17 that he'd vote in.

[BostonNut]

Buster Posey isn't having sex???? What???

Jesus people...when you make a thread provide enough information so everyone knows what you are trying to communicate...

[noryan34]

I DO! Its not expensive.

I can't stand the protest ballots we've seen in the past, when someone signs a blank ballot that counts as a vote against all candidates. That's unfair. I've hated to hear the stories of voters who haven't voted for a player because they didn't like them personally. The voting shouldn't be about the writer; it should be only about the players and whether they're worthy of induction.

And I can't stand the idea of casting a ballot that works against players that I think should be inducted, such as Mussina, Schilling or others. So as much as it has been an honor in the past to participate in the voting, I'll abstain, and hope that in the future the rules change.



This is my favorite part, he is pretty much doing exactly what he said he can't stand. He sounds like a sore loser crying about the refs blowing the game.....

[death2redemptions]

Buster Posey isn't having sex???? What???

Jesus people...when you make a thread provide enough information so everyone knows what you are trying to communicate...

Completely agree. I had no idea what this thread was supposed to be about when I read the title and after clicking on it and reading the comment I still had no idea what this thread was supposed to be about.

[TarjetasBéisbol]

I DO! Its not expensive.

Even though it is not expensive I just find that many of those "writers" seem to be full of themselves way too often.

Vote if you are given the honor!!

As for those who didn't know what the title was about, you do realize there are other places you can get info besides BO right?

[jewcer2k5]

Even though it is not expensive I just find that many of those "writers" seem to be full of themselves way too often.

Vote if you are given the honor!!

I agree with that I just got fed up with Insider stuff not being able to read. I got it for 2 reasons....Fantasy baseball custom auction $$$ values (which has helped me win nearly $2,500 the last 2 baseball seasons) and College Football recruiting.

Totally worth the $60 for 2 years or w/e it is.

[ageofreason13]

He's a moron and thinks not voting helps the guys who would get bounced off by voting for others stay on the ballot longer. Or some nonsense like that. Apparently he feels like everyone is a HOFer since he counted 17 that he'd vote in.

I wouldn't call him a moron when he is actually right. By not casting any vote the number of votes for each player is divided by a smaller number which increases their percentage of votes. I think what he's doing is similar to when a child refuses to play because they can't change the rules of the game, but at least this will have a measurable impact on the voting. I'm a bit surprised he didn't take the opportunity to remind us once again why he hates Ryan Braun too.

[clocsta2323]

Completely agree. I had no idea what this thread was supposed to be about when I read the title and after clicking on it and reading the comment I still had no idea what this thread was supposed to be about.

I felt guilty straight up asking for the Insider article so I was intentionally vague. I didn't understand where he (BUSTER OLNEY) was going with it. What a righteous d-bag. Jewcer hooked it up though! (2) Cory Spangenberg 2011 BDPP autos coming your way sir, pm me shipping.

[DSizzle31]

I agree with that I just got fed up with Insider stuff not being able to read. I got it for 2 reasons....Fantasy baseball custom auction $$$ values (which has helped me win nearly $2,500 the last 2 baseball seasons) and College Football recruiting.

Totally worth the $60 for 2 years or w/e it is.

You got ripped. Insider comes free if you subscribe to ESPN the magazine.

On slickdeals.net, they constantly have deals on ESPN magazine for $5 OR LESS per year. Hell, a couple of days ago they posted a deal where you could get the magazine for free for taking a survey.

I subscribed just to get the Insider access. Now all I have to do is throw away that terrible magazine every two weeks.

[IronMonkey415]

1. Thought this was anout Buster Posey.

2. Thought Posey first name is unique.

3. Finds out there is other people name BUSTER...lol

[asujbl]

Nevermind ...

[VeedonFleece]

I've read it (thanks Jewcer) but I don't get it. Most pointless protest (non-)vote ever!

[DSizzle31]

edit: nevermind

[VeedonFleece]

BTW, if anyone wants a free 1 year subscription to ESPN the magazine which comes with Insider access for a year, all you have to do is take a quick survey. Here's the link that explains it:

Magazines: GQ, ESPN, Men's Fitness, Entrepreneur, Shape and more At No Cost (via Brief Online Survey) - Reward Survey Deals, Coupons and Promos (http://slickdeals.net/f/7464542-free-12-issues-of-gq-rewardsurvey)

I'm far too principled to shill myself just to get crappy Insider!

[jewcer2k5]

I felt guilty straight up asking for the Insider article so I was intentionally vague. I didn't understand where he (BUSTER OLNEY) was going with it. What a righteous d-bag. Jewcer hooked it up though! (2) Cory Spangenberg 2011 BDPP autos coming your way sir, pm me shipping.

Not necessary dude.

[jewcer2k5]

You got ripped. Insider comes free if you subscribe to ESPN the magazine.

On slickdeals.net, they constantly have deals on ESPN magazine for $5 OR LESS per year. Hell, a couple of days ago they posted a deal where you could get the magazine for free for taking a survey.

I subscribed just to get the Insider access. Now all I have to do is throw away that terrible magazine every two weeks.

Im ok. I can afford it. No big deal to me man, I get ESPN Magazine anyway for some ridiculous reason. I think someone "iced" me and sent it to me.

[VeedonFleece]

edit: nevermind

Hope you didn't do this because of my post. I don't think I'm eligible for the offer anyway, being European. I did have Insider (free) on my phone for a while. Hard to believe they expect people to pay for Jim Bowden!

[BostonNut]

Edit: Nevermind

[DSizzle31]

Hope you didn't do this because of my post. I don't think I'm eligible for the offer anyway, being European. I did have Insider (free) on my phone for a while. Hard to believe they expect people to pay for Jim Bowden!

No I didn't do it because of your post. I read through some of the comments and people were complaining that new members to that survey site can't accrue enough points to get ESPN magazine right away.

Doesn't seem worth it if you have to take multiple surveys.

Anyway, discountmags.com has 1 yr subscriptions to ESPN w/ Insider for $4.99 so I wouldn't bother with the survey nonsense to only save 5 bucks.

[noryan34]

I wouldn't call him a moron when he is actually right. By not casting any vote the number of votes for each player is divided by a smaller number which increases their percentage of votes. I

While this may be true for the players he wouldn't have voted for, lest not forget the 10 he WOULD have voted for. He is hurting their chances of getting elected/staying on the ballot.

[kinar]

While this may be true for the players he wouldn't have voted for, lest not forget the 10 he WOULD have voted for. He is hurting their chances of getting elected/staying on the ballot.

Not really. He mentions that other writers he has talked to are choosing 10 from 12-20 which means the 10 he would vote for aren't really in any danger. Lets face it, there really isn't much difference between getting elected into the hall with 75% of voting and 99%. The end result is exactly the same. You're in the HOF and have achieved the greatest achievement available to your profession.

Going by Baseball-Reference's HOF meter, there are 22 players on this years ballot who would be likely to get into the hall with only 3 of those players having been on the ballot for 10+ years. Of those 3, only Mattingly is under 20% voting. However, Trammel could be in danger if he sees another dropoff like last year as a result of people voting for top 10.

2015 Potential Hall of Fame Ballot | Baseball-Reference.com (http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_2015.shtml)

Realistically, he should lobby to get the rule changed while casting his ballot for the bottom 10 picks of his 15. The top 5 picks on his list are almost surely to survive until the next year even if they don't get in this year.

[mfw13]

Personally, I think he's an idiot.....

And it all depends on your definition of a Hall of Famer.

For example, my ballot this year would have only six guys on it.....Bonds, Clemens, Johnson, Martinez, Bagwell, and Piazza.

The 10-player limit only affects you if you think everyone and their grandma belongs in the Hall of Fame, which I certainly don't.

[Skipscards]

Olney is a tool. I hope they take his vote away for good.

[Wolves4Life]

Personally, I think he's an idiot.....

And it all depends on your definition of a Hall of Famer.

For example, my ballot this year would have only six guys on it.....Bonds, Clemens, Johnson, Martinez, Bagwell, and Piazza.

The 10-player limit only affects you if you think everyone and their grandma belongs in the Hall of Fame, which I certainly don't.

How could you leave Sosa off of it? If anything he's as deserving as Piazza.

[Andrew Jones]

Buster who?

http://mimg.ugo.com/201104/8/2/0/185028/cuts/buster-bluth_528_poster.png

[chezball]

Olney is a tool. I hope they take his vote away for good.

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[ArsonCuff]

1. Thought this was anout Buster Posey.

2. Thought Posey first name is unique.

3. Finds out there is other people name BUSTER...lol

Buster Posey's real name isn't Buster....he's Gerald Dempsey Posey the third ...and his nickname I guess would be "the second" because Wiki says he gets the nickname Buster from his father's nickname when his father was a child.

[mfw13]

How could you leave Sosa off of it? If anything he's as deserving as Piazza.

Easily.

Because without all the extra HR he hit using steroids, Sosa is barely in the discussion. Probably ends up with right around 450-500 HR and a BA < .270, with average to below average baserunning skills and defense.

Whereas Piazza is the best hitting catcher of all-time, with a 143 OPS+ (Bench is 2nd-best with a career 125 OPS+).

[enbambam6986]

Personally, I think he's an idiot.....

You're not the only one. ESPN IS TERRIBLE. They're all sooo dumb. MLB Network has the All Star writers.

[xbignick]

Well done, Buster Olney.

Get rid of the limit. Put the believed PED guys in. The sudden morality years later is absurd.

Remember when someone gave their vote to Deadspin?
Revealed: The Hall Of Fame Voter Who Turned His Ballot Over To Deadspin (http://deadspin.com/revealed-the-hall-of-fame-voter-who-turned-his-ballot-1496558341)

[xbignick]

Because he's trying to make it all about him

May be so, but how many voters act like idiots every year towards the public for attention?

It doesn't invalidate his reasons.

[xbignick]

Yeah. I just don't get that even though he feels players (Moose/Schilling/etc) are HoF worthy he wouldn't vote for them. Wanted to read the whole article but I will never put a CC# into ESPN.com.

Because there's others as well and leaving them off is essentially not voting for them.

With voters limited to 10 names, and a massive backlog caused by unclear guidelines and hundreds of different interpretations of how to treat the PED era, being forced to leave a player off a ballot is akin to voting against him. This is as close as Olney—boring, upright Olney, who requires the cold math of the ballot limit to take this stand—will get to raging against his dumb colleagues for not voting in the Bondses and Clemenses as soon as they were eligible. But we will absolutely take it.

This is my favorite part, he is pretty much doing exactly what he said he can't stand. He sounds like a sore loser crying about the refs blowing the game.....

It crosses the not about the writer point but what else would spark attention? No one would care otherwise.

Personally, I think he's an idiot.....

And it all depends on your definition of a Hall of Famer.

For example, my ballot this year would have only six guys on it.....Bonds, Clemens, Johnson, Martinez, Bagwell, and Piazza.

The 10-player limit only affects you if you think everyone and their grandma belongs in the Hall of Fame, which I certainly don't.

The irony.




----

I'm not sure how any baseball fan can disagree with his points....