2022 Baseball HOF ballot

[Silent George]

oh, and just to give a roid suspicion update. 16 ballots thus far:
Bonds, Clemens 12
Ortiz 10
ARod 8
Manny 6
Sheffield, Sosa 4
Pettitte 1

[pewe]

Originally Posted by Silent George

Why is he a part of the cloud? What evidence was ever there that Sosa did steroids?

Only one so far as I can tell. He was on the 2003 list. Just like Ortiz.

Better all around player with more WAR and more HR, which was Ortiz's forte. who also won an MVP award.

So let's still say Ortiz was better, because his postseason success makes up for the 10 WAR or something like that.

If Sosa is at 13.8%, how much better is Ortiz? Maybe he should be at 16% of the vote?

Well, I guessed you believe Sosa has low vote % due to PED suspicions. I was just trying to get a handle on how strong his candidacy would be regardless. 60 WAR OF feels borderline?

Not sure it’s a useful comp, but Ortiz generated nearly 40% more oWAR. And has a lot of the intangible “face of MLB”, “most popular player in MLB” and “leader of Red Sox to exorcise the curse”. I guess Sosa might not have similar storylines?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Silent George]

Originally Posted by pewe

Well, I guessed you believe Sosa has low vote % due to PED suspicions. I was just trying to get a handle on how strong his candidacy would be regardless. 60 WAR OF feels borderline?

Not sure it’s a useful comp, but Ortiz generated nearly 40% more oWAR. And has a lot of the intangible “face of MLB”, “most popular player in MLB” and “leader of Red Sox to exorcise the curse”. I guess Sosa might not have similar storylines?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Uhh yes, Sammy Sosa isn't in the HOF only because of steroid allegations.

Sammy Sosa was incredibly popular. I don't know what your memory could have been of 1998, but he and McGwire - talk about storylines - were credited with saving baseball.

And I don't know about Ortiz winning any of those popularity contests. Maybe he did. I know he was a contemporary of a guy named Jeter, and that covers most of his career.

But we are talking about bias here. and that's the point. There wasn't actually a curse. He didn't perform a miracle. He was a part of very good, very expensive teams in a large market that won the WS. And he gets points for how he played. For sure. But if a 60WAR OF who helped save baseball is borderline, how is a 50 WAR DH who won some titles with Boston somehow so much better?

And how does fellow Bostonian Manny Ramirez who is TWICE suspended for Peds getting more votes year in and year out?

The 6 released names on the 2003 steroid list came out and MLB was silent. Let Sammy Sosa go through all these votes without mentioning that REALLY we can't hold him accountable for that. But Mafred lays it all out for David Ortiz. Well if that's the case, it works for Sosa too, right?

So why isn't it?

I know you won't say Pewe, I know. Let me help you. They really like Ortiz. They really like his intangibles. His smile sets them aflutter. He gave that awesome speech after the marathon attacks.

Sosa famously took the field after 9/11 running across Wrigley with a fluttering American flag, but that's been forgotten I guess. Because he took steroids. And we know he did because he failed a 2003 test. A test that mattered right up until the point when someone questioned Ortiz. And suddenly, to a whole lot of people, that test didn't count anymore. Except for the others, like Sosa.

[JRX]

Ortiz gets disproportionate amount of love because espn is hq in CT.

[Noles939913]

Originally Posted by pewe

How strong is his case irrespective of being part of the 90s PED cloud?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A lock. 609 HRs.

[JRX]

Wow, I completely forgot he hit over 600. I knew he averaged 60 over a 4 year span and hit over 60 3x.

[JRX]

Almost half of his hr were hit over a 5 year period. 292 HR from 98 to 02.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by Silent George

Uhh yes, Sammy Sosa isn't in the HOF only because of steroid allegations.

Sammy Sosa was incredibly popular. I don't know what your memory could have been of 1998, but he and McGwire - talk about storylines - were credited with saving baseball.

And I don't know about Ortiz winning any of those popularity contests. Maybe he did. I know he was a contemporary of a guy named Jeter, and that covers most of his career.

But we are talking about bias here. and that's the point. There wasn't actually a curse. He didn't perform a miracle. He was a part of very good, very expensive teams in a large market that won the WS. And he gets points for how he played. For sure. But if a 60WAR OF who helped save baseball is borderline, how is a 50 WAR DH who won some titles with Boston somehow so much better?

And how does fellow Bostonian Manny Ramirez who is TWICE suspended for Peds getting more votes year in and year out?

The 6 released names on the 2003 steroid list came out and MLB was silent. Let Sammy Sosa go through all these votes without mentioning that REALLY we can't hold him accountable for that. But Mafred lays it all out for David Ortiz. Well if that's the case, it works for Sosa too, right?

So why isn't it?

I know you won't say Pewe, I know. Let me help you. They really like Ortiz. They really like his intangibles. His smile sets them aflutter. He gave that awesome speech after the marathon attacks.

Sosa famously took the field after 9/11 running across Wrigley with a fluttering American flag, but that's been forgotten I guess. Because he took steroids. And we know he did because he failed a 2003 test. A test that mattered right up until the point when someone questioned Ortiz. And suddenly, to a whole lot of people, that test didn't count anymore. Except for the others, like Sosa.

Fangraph’s take: “Sammy Sosa (18th among right fielders in JAWS, 13.9% in 2019)
A towering figure in baseball’s return from the strike, and just the sixth player to reach 600 home runs, he’s nonetheless below the bar in JAWS, but above 2018 honoree Vladimir Guerrero (21st at 50.3). That matters more to me than the report that he was on the supposedly anonymous 2003 survey test, which as noted above, belongs to the “Wild West” era before the game had a coherent PED policy. What’s more, commissioner Rob Manfred basically disavowed it in the context of celebrating David Ortiz, on the grounds that some disputed results were never resolved because the threshold to implement testing had been reached. That doesn’t mean Sosa was clean, but if MLB couldn’t penalize him, I’m not going to, which isn’t to say that I’m obligated to vote for him. After six straight years of single-digit vote shares, he received more support than ever in 2020, and is currently polling at 23.9%.”

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/jay-jaff...f-fame-ballot/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Silent George]

Originally Posted by pewe

Fangraph’s take: “Sammy Sosa (18th among right fielders in JAWS, 13.9% in 2019)
A towering figure in baseball’s return from the strike, and just the sixth player to reach 600 home runs, he’s nonetheless below the bar in JAWS, but above 2018 honoree Vladimir Guerrero (21st at 50.3). That matters more to me than the report that he was on the supposedly anonymous 2003 survey test, which as noted above, belongs to the “Wild West” era before the game had a coherent PED policy. What’s more, commissioner Rob Manfred basically disavowed it in the context of celebrating David Ortiz, on the grounds that some disputed results were never resolved because the threshold to implement testing had been reached. That doesn’t mean Sosa was clean, but if MLB couldn’t penalize him, I’m not going to, which isn’t to say that I’m obligated to vote for him. After six straight years of single-digit vote shares, he received more support than ever in 2020, and is currently polling at 23.9%.”

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/jay-jaff...f-fame-ballot/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

that's a year old from Jaffe, not sure if he's done his new one yet.

Earlier I referenced the 13.9, and didn't realize I was off a year. He was 17% last year. Whereas I think that should put Ortiz around, oh 19.4%

I'm in the weird position of seeing 15-20 hall of famers on this ballot, including Ortiz and Sosa. Knowing they should get very similar support, and already seeing that one gets substantial support, and one doesn't. And THE top reason to not support them is the exact same evidence.

In general if you don't vote for Ortiz, I think you're a moron.
And if you do vote for Ortiz, you're likely a hypocrite based on others you won't, or haven't voted for.

I'll leave an exception for the 10 selection rule, and that you might have to leave off people for strategic reasons.

Wherever Ortiz and Sosa are, they should be in the same general stratosphere of voting results. And they only reason they aren't is because a substantial number of voters count steroid suspicions against one guy, and not another. Basically textbook bias.

[NHRonin]

Originally Posted by JRX

Ortiz gets disproportionate amount of love because espn is hq in CT.

The same ESPN that for years hated the Patriots?

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by Silent George

Then, if you don't mind, if not for the votes, I'm wondering what changed your mind from saying in October:



and this in November at the beginning of the thread:



I've definitely mentally had you down as thinking this was Curt's year, and something must have changed for you.

Nothing has changed my mind. I still hold the same opinion. Schilling is the only one who has a chance. This should be Curt's year. In all of history, only three players have received 70%+ of the vote in one year and not gotten in the very next year... Franck Chance, Red Ruffing, and Curt Schilling. The idea that Schilling could make the list twice seems unlikely.

If I'm wrong, it's ok. I've been wrong before. A couple of times I'm sure. I don't remember those times right now of course. But I'm sure it's happened. If it happens this time, we can assume a percentage of the BBWAA isn't taking their responsibility seriously.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by pewe

What would be an indication they are hypocritical?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because of how they have treated every other player before Ortiz. The BBWAA has established a clear line thus far and have largely punted PED users to the Vets Committee. But there is a player on the ballot I was specifically thinking of...

Originally Posted by Silent George

Sammy Sosa got 13.8% of the vote last year. Why?

- A Cardinals fan who is absolutely bewildered about Sammy Sosa being shut out of the Hall

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Silent George

Why is he a part of the cloud? What evidence was ever there that Sosa did steroids?

Only one so far as I can tell. He was on the 2003 list. Just like Ortiz.

Better all around player with more WAR and more HR, which was Ortiz's forte. who also won an MVP award.

So let's still say Ortiz was better, because his postseason success makes up for the 10 WAR or something like that.

If Sosa is at 13.8%, how much better is Ortiz? Maybe he should be at 16% of the vote?

Perfectly said. Electing Ortiz or even giving him a vote total north of 30% would be hypocritical.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by pewe

Well, I guessed you believe Sosa has low vote % due to PED suspicions. I was just trying to get a handle on how strong his candidacy would be regardless. 60 WAR OF feels borderline?

Not sure it’s a useful comp, but Ortiz generated nearly 40% more oWAR. And has a lot of the intangible “face of MLB”, “most popular player in MLB” and “leader of Red Sox to exorcise the curse”. I guess Sosa might not have similar storylines?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is simply no precedent for excluding someone with 600 clean homeruns. WAR ain't got nuthin on 600 homeruns. Also, Ortiz WAR is less than Sosa.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by pewe

What would be an indication they are hypocritical?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sosa's name was leaked as being one of 104 players who tested positive in the 2003 survey. So was Ortiz.

There has been no other proof publicly released that showed Sosa used PEDs -- same with Ortiz.

Yet Sosa won't be voted in and Ortiz likely will.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

Sosa's name was leaked as being one of 104 players who tested positive in the 2003 survey. So was Ortiz.

There has been no other proof publicly released that showed Sosa used PEDs -- same with Ortiz.

Yet Sosa won't be voted in and Ortiz likely will.

You aren’t addressing the key question: this argument assumes Sosa had a strong case without PED cloud. They aren’t hypocritical if he wouldn’t make it in anyway.

And I guess the argument is that although he’s probably below the quality of career line that we’d mostly expect to get in, that his HR total means he must be admitted in the face of a more modest rest of his portfolio?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fabiani12333]

Canseco said he injected steroids in Ivan Rodriguez's butt. Ivan got elected his first year on the ballot.

For some reason a certain segment of voters who voted for Pudge think Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa and Palmeiro are different and not deserving of their vote.

If Canseco lied about injecting steroids in players in his 2005 book, why didnt he get sued? Pujols sued Jack Clark after Clark emphatically said Pujols was injected with steroids in his youth.

What I'm really trying to say is, the voters who voted for Pudge but not Bonds and Clemens are lying about why they're not voting for them.

And Bagwell, Biggio and Piazza were obvious users -- Bagwell and Piazza admitted to using andro.

This is all silly.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by JRX

Wow, I completely forgot he hit over 600. I knew he averaged 60 over a 4 year span and hit over 60 3x.

Ya - this tripped me up, too. I completely glossed over what he got to in HR.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[warmouth]

I don't have a problem with steroids in the HOF. From an honesty standpoint, many would be shocked to see how widespread steriod and other ped still is and who uses. As a former long time bodybuilder, I knew a lot of people who dealt with these substances and where a lot of it went. When I heard nearly every D1 college athlete uses (females included) , I was flabbergasted! I thought they used to go pro and then slowed down at the time. But apparently worldwide usage of PEDs are a multibillion dollar industry in professional sports. Its come to a point where people dont take to cheat, per se, but to compete. And truth be told, I think its always been that way. People pay to see these famous professionals and the pros want to be at the top of their game and competitive. The pressures they face to stay relevant in an industry that younger, faster, stronger people can replace them at the drop of a hat has to be tough. I say let them all in the HOF of the stats are deserving. If an asterisk is needed, thats fine too.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by pewe

You aren’t addressing the key question: this argument assumes Sosa had a strong case without PED cloud. They aren’t hypocritical if he wouldn’t make it in anyway.

And I guess the argument is that although he’s probably below the quality of career line that we’d mostly expect to get in, that his HR total means he must be admitted in the face of a more modest rest of his portfolio?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No one knows how Sosa would have performed without steroids. Just like no one knows how Pudge would have performed without them.

Comparing the performance of steroid using players to the performance of other supposedly clean players is a flawed methodology because we dont know who used steroids and who didnt.

It's just one big muddle.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

There is simply no precedent for excluding someone with 600 clean homeruns. WAR ain't got nuthin on 600 homeruns. Also, Ortiz WAR is less than Sosa.

Ortiz’s oWAR is ~1.4x Sosa… but honestly not close to someone like Edgar, who I think is the mold for DH HOF entry. In my opinion, Ortiz’s case has got to be bolstered by “story” to have any chance to get in.

My sense is Sosa, on a JAWS basis, wouldn’t normally be in consideration for HOF… it’s purely a HR question, it seems


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pewe]

Originally Posted by Silent George

Sammy Sosa got 13.8% of the vote last year. Why?

- A Cardinals fan who is absolutely bewildered about Sammy Sosa being shut out of the Hall

So… I took some time to actually read up on Sosa last night and get a sense of what could be his issue… I think this Chicago Tribune article summed it up: https://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...outputType=amp

Sosa is creating his own cloud by not denying he took PED. In fact, when asked he always (to this day) has one response: “I wasn’t caught”. He refuses to deny using PED, and thus he gets automatically grouped w/the rest. Which, honestly, how can I blame folks for reading into “I wasn’t caught” as “neener neener neener - I got away with using PED because you never caught me”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fabiani12333]

Anyone who is certain steroids were the reason why home run totals exploded in the 90s, read this article:
https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2018/9...home-run-chase

With juiced balls causing historic home run rates in recent years, it really highlights how unclear how much of an impact steroid use had in the 90s home run totals. Home run rates suddenly spiked in 93 and stayed elevated throughout the 90s. Widespread steroid use didnt just suddenly occur in 93.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by pewe

So… I took some time to actually read up on Sosa last night and get a sense of what could be his issue… I think this Chicago Tribune article summed it up: https://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...outputType=amp

Sosa is creating his own cloud by not denying he took PED. In fact, when asked he always (to this day) has one response: “I wasn’t caught”. He refuses to deny using PED, and thus he gets automatically grouped w/the rest. Which, honestly, how can I blame folks for reading into “I wasn’t caught” as “neener neener neener - I got away with using PED because you never caught me”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, all the while Ortiz occasionally goes on rants about how he's been character assassinated with the NY Times leak and how he's never knowingly used steroids:

On why he opted against using steroids before MLB tested for them or had a policy outlawing them:

"Because there's one thing that I have been afraid of my whole life: chemicals. I don't like to put chemicals in my body. I'm a happy person. I'm a person that believes in nature."

https://www.nj.com/yankees/2016/09/r...ositive_p.html

And Pudge wants you to know the "truth":

“I never took steroids,” Rodriguez writes in the first chapter titled Hall of Fame and Clearing the Air. “Let’s make that as crystal clear as possible —I never took steroids. If anyone says differently, they are lying.”

https://www.thestar.com/sports/baseb...-new-book.html

Yup -- totally believable.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

Yeah, all the while Ortiz occasionally goes on rants about how he's been character assassinated with the NY Times leak and how he's never knowingly used steroids:


https://www.nj.com/yankees/2016/09/r...ositive_p.html

And Pudge wants you to know the "truth":

https://www.thestar.com/sports/baseb...-new-book.html

Yup -- totally believable.

The difference is Sosa never denies it… whereas Ortiz and Pudge actually have always denied it. So whether you believe them or not, it seems like sports writers have this allocation

Certain used PED: Sosa

Uncertain used PED: Ortiz, Pudge

If “certain” is a red line, is “uncertain” one, too?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by NHRonin

The same ESPN that for years hated the Patriots?

Maybe they didn't like Belichick's "We're on to Cincinnati" schtick?

Seriously though, ESPN likes the ratings Red Sox-Yankees games bring. They also appreciated the exclusive interviews Ortiz gave them.