Hall of Fame '07

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Over the past two months, ESPN surveyed Hall of Fame voters for their opinions regarding Mark McGwire's presence on the Hall of Fame ballot. ESPN also compiled columns from media members indicating how they voted on their ballot and included those within its survey.

Of those whose surveys were taken and columns were read, the results are below (questions in bold).

How would you vote in the survey? Here's your chance to register your vote.


Will you vote for Mark McGwire, on the first ballot, for induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame?

• Yes -- 37 (26.8 percent)
• No -- 101 (73.2 percent)
Of the 101 who said that they would not vote for McGwire, ESPN asked the following question:


If no, will you vote for him in succeeding years?

• Yes -- 5 (5.0 percent)
• No -- 31 (30.7 percent)
• Undecided -- 43 (42.6 percent)
• No opinion given -- 22 (21.8 percent)

We also asked the following questions to those who responded to our survey:


If he were eligible this year, would you vote for Barry Bonds?

• Yes -- 44 (44.4 percent)
• No -- 31 (31.3 percent)
• Undecided -- 24 (24.2 percent)

If he were eligible this year, would you vote for Sammy Sosa?

• Yes -- 20 (20.4 percent)
• No -- 50 (51.0 percent)
• Undecided -- 28 (28.6 percent)

If he were eligible this year, would you vote for Rafael Palmeiro?

• Yes -- 8 (8.2 percent)
• No -- 68 (69.4 percent)
• Undecided -- 22 (22.3 percent)

spectre (gear), Thursday, 4 January 2007 21:14 (eighteen years ago)

Sosa was a pretty marginal HOFer either way, but wow Palmeiro's chances have really been killed, haven't they?

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 4 January 2007 21:33 (eighteen years ago)

I think before PEDs, Palmeiro should have been a lot more marginal than Sosa.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 5 January 2007 15:17 (eighteen years ago)

Really? Well WARP3 doesn't agree, certainly.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 5 January 2007 15:48 (eighteen years ago)

Joe Sheehan:

Will Carroll has pointed this out, but it’s worth bringing up again: how can McGwire be so vilified for steroid use that has never come close to being proven, while Shawne Merriman is perhaps the most celebrated defensive player in the NFL during the same season in which he tested positive for steroids? The hypocrisy in the coverage of steroids in sports has never been so evident as it is today, the gulf between the media’s handling of MLB and the NFL wide enough to drive the truth through.

I would vote for McGwire for the Hall of Fame, because his accomplishments, his performance, warrant his induction. Whatever questions there may be about how he achieved what he did on the field are simply not answered well enough to void his claim to a spot in Cooperstown. But for the afternoon of March 17, 2005, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion, and I’m just not willing to give a grandstanding Congressional committee that much sway over my thinking.

The steroids-in-sports story is an embarrassment to the American sports media. The shaming of Mark McGwire is just another point of evidence that this is really about creating a story, rather than covering it.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 5 January 2007 20:14 (eighteen years ago)

"Whatever questions there may be about how he achieved what he did on the field are simply not answered well enough to void his claim to a spot in Cooperstown."

But what if they are answered in the next 1-15 years? What's the problem with holding off voting him in if there is still a bunch of lingering questions about his "achievements"?

Also baseball fans being pissed at football fans because their sport is more under the limelight steroid-wise is pretty lame.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 5 January 2007 21:08 (eighteen years ago)

Also baseball fans being pissed at football fans because their sport is more under the limelight steroid-wise is pretty lame.

Yeah, but it's also intensely hypocritical.

Then again, there's the Hollis Thomas thing, where the dude was suspended for taking an inhalant for his asthma that had steroids in it... which he needs to uh BREATHE. He submitted it to the team doctor for approval, which was forwarded to the league for approval, and then the dude was suspended. Wtf is that about.

If you can't take steroids for genuine medical needs, the whole system is stupid and broken.

polyphonic (polyphonic), Friday, 5 January 2007 22:33 (eighteen years ago)

so this clown from some rag in chi town declined to vote for ripken or gwynn, to wit:

"In an attempt to uphold the Hall of Fame standards established by their predecessors, I will not vote for anyone who played in the 1993-2004 period, which I consider to be the Steroids Era," Ladewski wrote in an e-mail to The Sun last month. "That includes Tony Gwynn, Mark McGwire and Cal Ripken Jr."
"It's not an anti-Cal Ripken vote or an anti-Tony Gwynn vote; it's a vote about not knowing enough, in my opinion, of the Steroids Era and performance-enhancing drugs to make the kind of decision that needs to be made," Ladewski said.

"From my dealings with Cal Ripken Jr. in the past, he was very pleasant, a good ambassador for the game, and his numbers speak for themselves," Ladewski said. "But I don't have enough information on the [steroids] subject to make a decision."

what a douche.

jonathan quayle higgins (j.q. higgins), Monday, 8 January 2007 22:19 (eighteen years ago)

"I will not vote for anyone who played in the 1993-2004 period, which I consider to be the Steroids Era"

Oh you do now, do ya?

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 8 January 2007 22:37 (eighteen years ago)

what does he consider to be the Bennies and Apartheid Eras, I wonder?

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 8 January 2007 22:48 (eighteen years ago)

can someone remind me again why 1993 is being considered the beginning of the steroid era?

Steve Shasta (Steve Shasta), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 00:05 (eighteen years ago)

http://asher.baseballevolution.com/bagwellconspiracy.html

‘•’u (gear), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 00:29 (eighteen years ago)

The beginning of the 1993 season is the exact moment when the playing field (possibly) became slightly uneven. Lets put asterisks next to every number until the dust settles, whenever that might happen.

Andy_K (Andy_K), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 02:01 (eighteen years ago)

I like how these roid paranoiacs point at the drugs and not the four expansion teams or all of those band box new stadiums having anything to do with the power numbers getting out of wack in that period.

I think the whole roids issue is really shady, but to say that it was the definitive reason for the hitting explosion is lame. Criminy, just look at home run numbers for '61 and '77 which were both expansion seasons and you will find some patterns.

Earl Nash (earlnash), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 02:41 (eighteen years ago)

Well I think that, before the steroid thing broke, most sportswriters had plenty to say about the bandbox stadiums and the expansion teams and how modern stats didn't count as much as the good ol' stats, but steroids has really proven to be a call to arms like no other.

polyphonic (polyphonic), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 05:44 (eighteen years ago)

can someone remind me again why 1993 is being considered the beginning of the steroid era?

Or why 2004 should be considered the "end" of that era?

Introducting new drug testing rules in a sport =! the end of drug-taking in that sport

NoTimeBeforeTime (Barry Bruner), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 12:31 (eighteen years ago)

Asshats on the level of this Ladewski are the ones who still think Bush is "a leader."

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 14:34 (eighteen years ago)

I want to know who the 23 voters that didn't vote for Willie Mays were.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 16:25 (eighteen years ago)

40 mins to go -- anyone besides Saint Cal and One-Dimensional Tony make it? I think not. Gossage the next best chance.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 18:20 (eighteen years ago)

Jay Jaffe's JAWS method at Baseball Prospectus yields votes for Belle, Gwynn, McGwire, Ripken, Trammell, Blyleven, Gossage, and Lee Smith.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 18:25 (eighteen years ago)

I bet Rice makes it.

polyphonic (polyphonic), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 18:26 (eighteen years ago)

Rice has a better chance than Belle IMO.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 18:27 (eighteen years ago)

I like that list btw, although Smith seems a stretch to me.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 18:29 (eighteen years ago)

but we know WHY Belle has no chance, and it ain't his Win Shares... Jaffe is doing a BP chat at 4pm ET.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 18:45 (eighteen years ago)

BP Chats >>> ESPN Chats (although Law's seem to have less inane questions than Neyers)

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 18:48 (eighteen years ago)

Neyer is obsessed with posting questions about how he's biased or how he isn't qualified or whatever. It's tiresome.

polyphonic (polyphonic), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 19:05 (eighteen years ago)

Also just dumb questions like: "If Ryne Sandberg is a HOFer, then Andre Dawson has got to be as well, right?"

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 19:06 (eighteen years ago)

Neyer's chatting right now...

result: Just Cal & Tony. Gossage up to 71.2 percent.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 19:09 (eighteen years ago)

Big Mac less than 25%

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 19:12 (eighteen years ago)

And Blyleven drops 17 votes from 277 to 260.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 19:14 (eighteen years ago)

Both Rice and Dawson dropped a little too apparently.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 19:15 (eighteen years ago)

It's insane that McQuire might not get in. Personalities aside (I could NEVER stand him....he perfected that whole "hug-your-child-at-home-plate/point-to-the-sky" phoney bullshit), his baseball accomplishments where remarkable. His (ahem..."alleged") steroids use was pretty much endorsed by MLB, for the league's "looking the other way" during the homerun races amounts to pretty much the same.

peepee (peepee), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 19:32 (eighteen years ago)

I feel like there's a difference between a guy like McGwire, who had apparently been using for his entire career if you believe Canseco/Game of Shadows, and a guy like Bonds who didn't use until he had already established Hall of Fame stats.

I don't begrudge people who don't vote for McGwire (unless they lie and say they're basing it on his numbers not being good enough, which is hilariously stupid), but I personally would not have any problems voting for him because for the most part I think steroids are a health issue, not a moral issue.

polyphonic (polyphonic), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 19:59 (eighteen years ago)

No, Rice gained... Neyer:


He moved up a bit, from 337 to 346. He'll almost certainly make it next year, thanks in part to the Red Sox's anti-sabermetric p.r. campaign. There's nothing like a little parochialism to justify one's faith in the power of objectivity!

(Neyer judges Rice inferior to Parker, Murphy, Jim Wynn, Ted Simmons, Raines, etc)

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 20:05 (eighteen years ago)

I watched a video of Gwynn's reaction, and the dude is so huge and immobile now that he had to support himself with both hands on both rails of a short stairway. He was dabbing his face with a towel every five seconds because of the oppressive, 65 degree F heat. So sad.

polyphonic (polyphonic), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 21:59 (eighteen years ago)

I don't have a problem with Jaffe's take btw:

Jay Jaffe: Would I vote for McGwire? I honestly don't know. The numbers say yes. The lack of hard evidence -- a positive test, an admission, definitive proof -- says yes. The amount of circumstantial evidence surrounding him -- the andro, the Canseco book, Operation Equine, Congress -- makes me hesitate.

I'd rather defer the matter for 14 years, until we gain a better perspective on all of this stuff, then cast a ballot that I feel truly comfortable with.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 23:01 (eighteen years ago)

did Donny Baseball at least eclipse McGwire in votes? i'm thinking not..

tony conrad schnitzler (sanskrit), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 04:27 (eighteen years ago)

votes/ %

Mark McGwire 128 23.5

Don Mattingly 54 9.9

YOU ARE WRONG

If you fuck with Jimmy Mod, you call down the thunder (The Famous Jimmy Mod), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 04:53 (eighteen years ago)

lol @ Canseco & Bonilla
how in the hell does Concepcion get more votes than Trammell?
also, Dale Murphy, he used to be closer to 50% at one time, no? jeez


Cal Ripken Jr. 537 98.5
Tony Gwynn 532 97.6
Rich Gossage 388 71.2
Jim Rice 346 63.5
Andre Dawson 309 56.7
Bert Blyleven 260 47.7
Lee Smith 217 39.8
Jack Morris 202 37.1
Mark McGwire 128 23.5
Tommy John 125 22.9
Steve Garvey 115 21.1
Dave Concepcion 74 13.6
Alan Trammell 73 13.4
Dave Parker 62 11.4
Don Mattingly 54 9.9
Dale Murphy 50 9.2
Harold Baines 29 5.3
Orel Hershiser 24 4.4
Albert Belle 19 3.5
Paul O'Neill 12 2.2
Bret Saberhagen 7 1.3
Jose Canseco 6 1.1
Tony Fernandez 4 0.7
Dante Bichette 3 0.6
Eric Davis 3 0.6
Bobby Bonilla 2 0.4
Ken Caminiti 2 0.4
Jay Buhner 1 0.2
Scott Brosius 0 0
Wally Joyner 0 0
Devon White 0 0
Bobby Witt 0 0

timmy tannin (pompous), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 05:31 (eighteen years ago)

Injustices:

Tony Fernandez: 0.7%
Dave Conception: 13.6%

Jim Rice: 63.5%
Albert Belle: 3.5%

(this is not to say that any of those four guys are necessarily HOFers)

NoTimeBeforeTime (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 08:21 (eighteen years ago)

i have to lol @ buster olney's recent article about why he didn't vote for blyleven, followed by noting how he voted for jack morris.

‘•’u (gear), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 08:50 (eighteen years ago)

NEVER FORGET

http://news.theolympian.com/marinersMvNY/yankeesteam/photos/scottbrosius.jpg

timmy tannin (pompous), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 09:00 (eighteen years ago)

not that i have the ammo, but i think you can make a defensible argument for putting tony fernandez in the hall. i don't know how his d rates from a sabermetric perspective, but he was pretty much regarded as the best defensive shortstop for years on a team that was a perennial powerhouse pre-wildcard era. it definitely seems that once a guy gets a reputation as good defender, it's tough to shake regardless of actual on field performance, but when people talk about those great toronto teams of the 90s, i think kind of gets left out.

jonathan quayle higgins (j.q. higgins), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 13:58 (eighteen years ago)

Donny Baseball

oh yankeepaws

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 14:46 (eighteen years ago)

EQA BRAR BRAA FRAA WARP3 peak JAWS
Concepcion .256 264 -39 150 109.8 66.6 88.2
Fernandez .273 399 131 115 105.4 63.6 84.5
Ripken .284 759 371 130 169.2 89.1 129.2
Trammell .283 535 251 64 123.4 70.8 97.1
AVG HOF SS 453 153 120 112.3 67.1 89.7

Concepcion's HOF credentials really aren't that bad (he's only narrowly below the HOF SS average.) Trammell not getting more votes is the sadder criminal thing here. I hope the VC puts him in.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 17:07 (eighteen years ago)

Tim Raines was really really good btw (I'd totally forgotten until I looked at his stats just now.)

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 18:07 (eighteen years ago)

I think Jaffe suggested he'll hafta wait til Rickey's in... at least.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 18:12 (eighteen years ago)

i wonder if his possible HOF plaque will note one particular theory on how he came by the nickname 'rock'.

‘•’u (gear), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 18:20 (eighteen years ago)

It's not even theory as I thought he'd actually admitted to cocaine use.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 18:25 (eighteen years ago)

of course i just wasn't sure if that was where 'rock' came from.

‘•’u (gear), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 18:30 (eighteen years ago)

dead soldiers all over the diamond

cousin larry bundgee (bundgee), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 18:39 (eighteen years ago)

interesting about cal's JAWS. apparently 2nd only to honus wagner amongst HoF SSs.

this is from a yanks board. they threw in jeter & a-rod to add a little sabermetric perspective to the reflexive hyperventilation caused by an anti-jeter article on espn this past spring...

Player Career WARP3 Peak JAWS
Wagner 193.6 84.8 139.2
Ripken 165.6 86.2 125.9
Vaughan 127.9 87.4 107.7
Banks 129.3 84.3 106.8
A-Rod 118.9 90 104.5
Ozzie 135.5 66.2 100.9
Appling 129.9 71.5 100.7
Yount 131.9 67.9 99.9
Cronin 115.7 73.9 94.8
Boudreau 107.5 79.4 93.5
Wallace 115.8 58.8 87.3
Sewell 102.2 70.1 86.2
Reese 104.2 64.3 84.3
Bancroft 90.3 53.3 71.8
Rizzuto 77.4 60.3 68.9
Jeter 77.8 53.2 65.5

average HoF SS JAWS is 82.2?

jonathan quayle higgins (j.q. higgins), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 22:55 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah I think it is the second lowest other than catcher, maybe?

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 23:07 (eighteen years ago)

No wait it's not 82.2, it's 89.7.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 23:08 (eighteen years ago)

I always liked Big Lee Smith but he was when I started to realize how much of a junk stat Saves are.

bnw (bnw), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 23:08 (eighteen years ago)

In all fairness to Smith, he was really very very good at compiling that junk stat. I still don't think he's Hall worthy, but he's among the better closers ever.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 23:20 (eighteen years ago)

89.7? higher than for a 1b or rf? nutty.

anyways, surprised to see how far over the line cal is and far below it derek awesome is.

jonathan quayle higgins (j.q. higgins), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 23:36 (eighteen years ago)

No RF is 92.5.

POS # BRAR BRAA FRAA WARP PEAK JAWS
C 13 425 215 70 95.7 59.0 77.3
1B 18 744 489 -9 106.1 62.8 84.5
2B 17 579 304 92 122.8 71.5 97.1
3B 11 668 385 69 117.4 67.3 92.4
SS 20 453 153 120 112.3 67.1 89.7
LF 18 752 477 7 111.1 62.6 86.8
CF 17 720 466 15 109.1 63.7 86.4
RF 22 795 519 36 119.6 65.4 92.5

CI 29 716 450 20 110.3 64.5 87.4
MI 37 510 222 107 117.1 69.1 93.1
IF 66 600 321 69 114.1 67.1 90.6
OF 57 759 490 21 113.8 64.0 88.9

Middle 67 547 283 77 111.0 65.8 88.4
Corners 69 751 479 22 113.5 64.3 88.9

Hitters 136 651 383 49 112.3 65.0 88.6

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 23:42 (eighteen years ago)

Um can someone format these tables?

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 23:42 (eighteen years ago)

Also those Jeter #s look wrong. His WARP3 is 91.8 according to BP.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 23:47 (eighteen years ago)

whoa Jimmy, i wasnt insinuating or expecting Mattingly to get any HoF voting action at all, let alone outdo McGwire. shocked he even got what he did, not really fair Dale Murphy was below him.

tony conrad schnitzler (sanskrit), Thursday, 11 January 2007 03:58 (eighteen years ago)

The average HOF JAWS for 1B is lower than any position other than catcher, I never would have guessed that. Three cheers for HOFers who can actually field the ball, I suppose.

NoTimeBeforeTime (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 11 January 2007 09:28 (eighteen years ago)

I did a spittake when I saw some columnist advocating Steve Garvey "for his defense" (range of a waterbuffalo)

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 11 January 2007 17:54 (eighteen years ago)

If only his seed were as un-rangy.

David R. (popshots75`), Thursday, 11 January 2007 18:17 (eighteen years ago)

his seed fertilized many a beanfield in and around los angeles

‘•’u (gear), Thursday, 11 January 2007 18:37 (eighteen years ago)

does anyone think certain steroid-era players will have a better chance of enshrinement because of all this shit? will certain pitchers and slap/contact hitter types have a better shot now?

‘•’u (gear), Thursday, 11 January 2007 23:27 (eighteen years ago)

Scrappy Eckstein!

polyphonic (polyphonic), Friday, 12 January 2007 00:06 (eighteen years ago)

PITCHERS dudes!

Steve Shasta (Steve Shasta), Friday, 12 January 2007 00:06 (eighteen years ago)

mark grace! jeff blauser!

‘•’u (gear), Friday, 12 January 2007 00:28 (eighteen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.