2022 Baseball Hall of Fame

And they're off!  With only about 7 ballots publicly known right now, Bonds, Clemens, Rolen, Schilling, Helton, Jones, and Ortiz are showing strength!

My guess is Schilling gets in at a bit over 75%.  Rolen may squeak in but likely fall short, which is fine with me as he just does not match up as a HOF player in my read of it.  We may face the pretty ugly prospect of Curt Schilling being the only speaker at the next induction ceremony.

Schilling is in his final year of eligibility--as are Bonds, Clemens, and Sosa.  It will be left to future veteran's committees to consider if their gaudy stats outweigh their open doping.

As popular as Ortiz is with the press and fans, he will get a lot of votes but never enough to get in the Hall, which also is appropriate (and I say this as a Red Sox fan).  ARoid (1st year) and Manny Ramirez (6th year) will poll in the middle of the pack and never get close unless the reporters suddenly relent on the steroid stain--which will not happen in my lifetime I think.

I wish Garry Sheffield would get more consideration, as well as Jeff Kent, but thy both are going to have to wait for the largess of a future veteran's committee.  Wagner may pick up votes because of the remaining nominees are either weak or steroid-compromised.


mfpark said:

We may face the pretty ugly prospect of Curt Schilling being the only speaker at the next induction ceremony.

Don’t Oliva and Kaat get to speak?


DaveSchmidt said:

Don’t Oliva and Kaat get to speak?

Yes, sorry, I meant of the folks voted in by the writers.

I also meant to include Andruw Jones as someone I think deserves very strong consideration for the HOF.  He was a beast during his years in Atlanta.


Poor Curt. So misunderstood.... not.

___________________________________

Schilling requested he be removed from Hall of Fame consideration in his final year of eligibility in a Facebook post, writing that he would like to later have the chance to be selected by the Veterans' Committee.

"I wanted to reiterate this final point," he wrote. "I will not participate in the final year of voting. I am requesting to be removed from the ballot. I’ll defer to the veterans committee and men whose opinions actually matter and who are in a position to actually judge a player. I don’t think I’m a hall of famer as I’ve often stated but if former players think I am then I’ll accept that with honor."


I agree that Schilling will probably squeak by this year with over 75%. 

I wonder if he will try to decline the honor.


in our previous years' discussions, I've already indicated I'd vote for Bonds and Clemens.  Same for A-Rod and Manny.  Those guys were all top tier players without PEDs, and in the intervening years I've come to believe the majority of MLB players during that era were using some kind of pharmaceutical help.  If Bonds and Clemens aren't in the HoF, nobody who played in the 90s should be, IMHO.  

With regard to Schilling, I'm usually in favor of guys being voted in if they're on the bubble.  And my issue with Schilling isn't his politics, because a LOT of MLB players are Trumpy-type Republicans.  If I really cared. about that, I probably wouldn't even follow baseball.  Schilling is different in his open bigotry, misogyny, and Islamaphobia.  His social media accounts were cesspools of toxicity.  So I would leave him off my ballot because he's a really terrible representative of MLB, and in my opinion way more so than guys who looked to PEDs for a competitive edge.

And yes, a Schilling. HoF induction speech would likely be brutal to listen to.


and I'd vote for Rolen.  Dude won 8 Gold Gloves.  And he was a very good hitter.  I'm always annoyed that fielding (aside from Ozzie and Brooks) isn't enough to get guys into the Hall.  It shouldn't be the Hall Of Outstanding Hitters and Pitchers.  There are a lot of Hall Of Famers who were pretty poor in the field (Edgar Martinez didn't even take the field in 3/4 of his games), and it didn't keep them off anyone's ballots.  That's why I think Rolen and Keith Hernandez deserve to be in the Hall.  Hernandez especially.  How can a player who is generally regarded as the best at what he did in the history of the game be left out of the Hall?   And both Rolen and Hernandez were top tier hitters in their primes.

For those who care about WAR (and I know many of you don't), Rolen should be a shoo-in.  And for those who dispute the value of WAR, it doesn't hurt to at least take a peek at the list of all-time 3Bs for lifetime WAR, and see the names that surround Rolen's.

  1. Mike Schmidt (HoF)  106.9
  2. Eddie Matthews (HOF) 96.1
  3. Adrian Beltre (not yet eligible). 93.5
  4. Wade Boggs (HOF) 91.4
  5. George Brett (HOF) 88.6
  6. Chipper Jones (HOF) 85.3
  7. Brooks Robinson (HOF) 78.4
  8. Paul Molitor (HOF) 75.7
  9. Ron Santo (HOF) 70.5
  10. Scott Rolen  70.1
  11. Edgar Martinez (HOF) 68.4

I agree that great fielding over a career should carry more weight in HOF consideration.


ml1 said:

And for those who dispute the value of WAR, it doesn't hurt to at least take a peek at the list of all-time 3Bs for lifetime WAR, and see the names that surround Rolen's.

    Surrounding Rolen are a third baseman who was voted into the Hall by a veterans committee 37 years after his career ended, and a DH whose career oWAR is 14 points higher.

    The shoo-in evidence in that bWAR list eluded my peek. The fWAR list is a little more favorable for Mr. Baseball Heaven. Not that my peeks matter. His fate is out of my hands.


    DaveSchmidt said:

    Surrounding Rolen are a third baseman who was voted into the Hall by a veterans committee 37 years after his career ended, and a DH whose career oWAR is 14 points higher.

    The shoo-in evidence in that bWAR list eluded my peek. The fWAR list is a little more favorable for Mr. Baseball Heaven. Not that my peeks matter. His fate is out of my hands.

    What that tells me is that it shouldn't have taken 37 years for Santo to get in.  He was a 9-time All-Star, and a 5-time Gold Glove.  It suggests to me that for a very long time voters gave a lot of weight to lifetime BA, and Santo's was only .277.  In a pitching-dominant era he was good for 30 HRs in his prime, and nearly 100 BBs. He'd be considered a top-tier player if he played today.

    And I guess my threshold for shoo-in is lower than most of the voters.  I've written it many times, that I'd vote for almost every candidate on the bubble.  Especially guys who were good all-around players like Rolen and Santo.


    Where do you set the line for being on the bubble?  Just wondering.

    If we are talking about fielding mattering (which it very much does for me), then Vizquel needs to also be in this discussion.

    Also, for me, it is what makes Andruw Jones a top-tier candidate, despite his tailing off later in his career.  He was the premier center fielder in the league with 10 Gold Gloves in 10 straight years.  Also over those 10 years his power stats were exceptional, although his batting average was average and he struck out a lot.  He did tail off rather precipitously once he left Atlanta for LA/Texas/Chisox/Hades, but for those 10 years in Atlanta he was one of the most impactful players on a very good team.  And he played almost every single game over those 10 years.  

    I realize that a lot look at excellence over an entire career, but for me being dominant for 10 years is a pretty good measure of belonging.


    mfpark said:

    Where do you set the line for being on the bubble?  Just wondering.

    If we are talking about fielding mattering (which it very much does for me), then Vizquel needs to also be in this discussion.

    Also, for me, it is what makes Andruw Jones a top-tier candidate, despite his tailing off later in his career.  He was the premier center fielder in the league with 10 Gold Gloves in 10 straight years.  Also over those 10 years his power stats were exceptional, although his batting average was average and he struck out a lot.  He did tail off rather precipitously once he left Atlanta for LA/Texas/Chisox/Hades, but for those 10 years in Atlanta he was one of the most impactful players on a very good team.  And he played almost every single game over those 10 years.  

    I realize that a lot look at excellence over an entire career, but for me being dominant for 10 years is a pretty good measure of belonging.

    I consider the "bubble" candidates to be the ones that are in the 50-60% vote range after they've been on the ballot for a few years.  There's a critical mass of support, but for many voters there are questions about whether a player was really dominant at his position.  The guys who play a long time and amass stats are often in that conversation.  Also guys who were really dominant but for a relatively brief period.  I think Andruw Jones ends up in the latter group.  His peak was about 8 seasons, and then he declined fast.  



    So far with only 6% of ballots publicly revealed, the early voters seem to not be concerned with steroids very much.  This is a similar pattern to the last few years.  Leading the voting at this early stage are Bonds, Clemens, Ortiz, Schilling (who has been accused of many things, but not steroid abuse), and Rolen.

    Second tier votes are ARod and Andruw Jones, followed by Helton and Wagner.

    If this year follows form, Bonds, Clemens, and Ortiz will all fade as later voters weigh in.  Likely ARod as well.

    Reading comments from various sportswriters who are eligible to vote, my thinking now is that Schilling and Rolen will be elected this year.  


    Among 1990s Phillies, Schilling and Rolen should be the Bobby Abreus of HOF candidates. Mental exercises only.

    (The eyewitness opinion expressed above is for entertainment purposes. Any references to career bWAR or fWAR, which compounds the algorithmic subjectivity and estimates baked into each season’s WAR, will be taken for same.)


    I can't stand the guy, but that has nothing to do with me not considering Schilling a HOFer. If they vote Ortiz in and not Bonds or Clemens then the entire system is an utter joke. I liked Rolen, but if he gets in then Hernandez and Mattingly should be in and I'm sure plenty of others that should be in that I'm forgetting. Nettles?   


    jfinnegan said:

    I can't stand the guy, but that has nothing to do with me not considering Schilling a HOFer. If they vote Ortiz in and not Bonds or Clemens then the entire system is an utter joke. I liked Rolen, but if he gets in then Hernandez and Mattingly should be in and I'm sure plenty of others that should be in that I'm forgetting. Nettles?   

    It might not be a bad idea for HoF voters to start considering fielding in their decisions.  Keith Hernandez to me is as much a Hall of Famer as Ozzie Smith is.  And I think Ozzie is a 100% legit HoFer,


    Agreed on Ozzie. All you need to do is look at highlights of plays Hernandez made and very rarely will you see any first baseman over the last 30 years be able to make any of those plays. Granted his one move where he stood in foul territory when holding runners on is now illegal. I always thought Dale Murphy should be in. And then there are certain guys that I thought were great when I was growing up and now I look at their stats and they don't stack up, i.e. Joel Youngblood


    jfinnegan said:

    And then there are certain guys that I thought were great when I was growing up and now I look at their stats and they don't stack up, i.e. Joel Youngblood

    My i.e. would be … Dale Murphy. Scary for seven or eight prime years as I tracked his back-and-forth HR and MVP races with Schmidt, but nobody special for the other half of his career.


    Touche! So I take it you don't think Rolen should be in. His stats and Murphy's are similar other than a couple more gold gloves for Rolen. My first exposure to baseball was the Mets of the late 70s/early 80s, so I thought Joel Youngblood was good and looked forward to days Pat Zachry pitched. 


    jfinnegan said:

    So I take it you don't think Rolen should be in.

    I wouldn’t vote for him, but I don’t begrudge any player’s enshrinement.

    My first exposure to baseball was the Mets of the late 70s/early 80s, so I thought Joel Youngblood was good and looked forward to days Pat Zachry pitched.

    I liked John Stearns and worried he was going to make things miserable in the East for a long time (but I liked the reliever the Phillies got in exchange for him, too).


    Stearns was solid, but Tug was always entertaining. I remember being very upset when they traded Hubie Brooks for Carter and thinking that Fitzgerald was good enough at catcher. I appreciate you not bringing up another deal where the Mets traded a reliever, not to mention Dykstra, for Juan Samuel. 


    jfinnegan said:

    I can't stand the guy, but that has nothing to do with me not considering Schilling a HOFer. If they vote Ortiz in and not Bonds or Clemens then the entire system is an utter joke. I liked Rolen, but if he gets in then Hernandez and Mattingly should be in and I'm sure plenty of others that should be in that I'm forgetting. Nettles?   

    I wonder if Ortiz will get the "He never actually got caught, but..." treatment that Piazza did, where he didn't get in until year three. Although I have see a few reporters defend their Ortiz, but not Bonds/Clemens/ARod votes. Can't help but think that it might have something to do with Ortiz being a great guy and outstanding quote while the other three weren't.


    jfinnegan said:

    Touche! So I take it you don't think Rolen should be in. His stats and Murphy's are similar other than a couple more gold gloves for Rolen. My first exposure to baseball was the Mets of the late 70s/early 80s, so I thought Joel Youngblood was good and looked forward to days Pat Zachry pitched. 

    the other thing I take into account is what position guys played. Murphy was very, very good, but as an outfielder, he wasn't among the elite.

    Rolen, OTOH as a 3B, stands out as an all-around player.  Eight Gold Gloves, as well as one of only four MLB 3Bs to finish his career with 2,000 hits, 500 doubles, 300 home runs and 1,200 RBI (the other three guys are named Schmidt, Brett, and Jones).


    ml1 said:

    as well as one of only four MLB 3Bs to finish his career with 2,000 hits, 500 doubles, 300 home runs and 1,200 RBI (the other three guys are named Schmidt, Brett, and Jones).

    Adrian Beltre says, “Wha?”


    Somewhere, Eddie Mathews regrets not stopping at second on 200 of his HRs.


    (Sure, but Mathews is in the Hall, and Beltre is a lock, so don’t they make the case? The HR-to-doubles switch, though, puts Gary Gaetti and Aramis Ramirez in the club, too, and the likes of Graig Nettles, Darrell Evans and Matt Williams in the ballpark. Tim Wallach, Robin Ventura and even Evan Longoria are pretty close as is.)


    DaveSchmidt said:

    Adrian Beltre says, “Wha?”

    I've got to admit I thought he was still active  vampire


    DaveSchmidt said:

    (Sure, but Mathews is in the Hall, and Beltre is a lock, so don’t they make the case? The HR-to-doubles switch, though, puts Gary Gaetti and Aramis Ramirez in the club, too, and the likes of Graig Nettles, Darrell Evans and Matt Williams in the ballpark. Tim Wallach, Robin Ventura and even Evan Longoria are pretty close as is.)

    How many Gold Gloves though?


    ml1 said:

    How many Gold Gloves though?

    Four Gold Gloves for Gaetti before the arrival of Ventura, who won five. Three each for Wallach and Williams, who also overlapped. Longoria has three as well, but his competition was Beltre and Machado. Nettles had only two — Robinson and Buddy Bell will do that to you — but his career dWAR is the same as Rolen’s.


    chalmers said:

    I wonder if Ortiz will get the "He never actually got caught, but..." treatment that Piazza did, where he didn't get in until year three. Although I have see a few reporters defend their Ortiz, but not Bonds/Clemens/ARod votes. Can't help but think that it might have something to do with Ortiz being a great guy and outstanding quote while the other three weren't.

    Ortiz did test positive. It's all about who the reporters like. My favorite was some reporters' holier than thou stance where they didn't think a player should get in in the first year. No reason other than he should wait. How do you not vote for Babe Ruth? Willie Mays? It's dumb and if Ortiz gets in there's no justification for keeping the others out. 


    In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

    Advertise here!

    Sponsored Business

    Find Business

    Rentals