Pretty much this.

Pudge is arguably the best catcher in the history of the game, he is definitely, without question, in the top 3. If he is not first ballot, it will be a shame.

LeFraud said:

---

Pretty much this.

Pudge is arguably the best catcher in the history of the game, he is definitely, without question, in the top 3. If he is not first ballot, it will be a shame.

---

Agreed. He's up there with the best. The only thing that could keep him off people's ballots is stupidity and belief in steroid use his drastic body change, having teammates with it, & Canseco telling everyone he did it.

I think folks are more wary of Pudge being associated with PEDs just because of the culture he was around when he was with the Rangers (Canseco & company). I've never thought he's taken PEDs. And certainly never thought Biggs did.

Not knocking the Rangers...just pointing out they had quite a few big names that got caught up in it.

HOF voter, George Willis, has a confusing ballot:

In
Bagwell
Vlad
Jeff Kent
Edgar Martinez
McGriff
Mussina
Posada
Raines
Sheffield
Lee Smith

I'm not sure how you justify Posada over Pudge. My first thought was PED suspicion, but a vote for Sheffield negates that reasoning. Lee Smith? I know the guy has a ton of saves, but only 4 seasons of 40+ and an ERA just north of 3.00. Also, I think Kent/Martinez/McGriff fall squarely in the Hall of Very Good category.


**edit
Just saw he's a NY Post columnist. That explains the Posada over Pudge vote, I would imagine.

RetiredAg said:

---

HOF voter, George Willis, has a confusing ballot:

In
Bagwell
Vlad
Jeff Kent
Edgar Martinez
McGriff
Mussina
Posada
Raines
Sheffield
Lee Smith

I'm not sure how you justify Posada over Pudge. My first thought was PED suspicion, but a vote for Sheffield negates that reasoning. Lee Smith? I know the guy has a ton of saves, but only 4 seasons of 40+ and an ERA just north of 3.00. Also, I think Kent/Martinez/McGriff fall squarely in the Hall of Very Good category.


**edit
Just saw he's a NY Post columnist. That explains the Posada over Pudge vote, I would imagine.

---

I'll agree, but say this about Kent. He compares pretty favorably to other second basement in the hall.

How many second basemen have a stretch like this (5 years).

.307
.378
.548
.926
29 HR
114 RBI
96 Runs

2B is such a hard position to evaluate, especially since throughout history they've been pretty light hitters. He was a pretty sub-par defensive 2B. Offensively, he's up there with any 2B in history. Only Lajouie and Hornsby drove in more runs. No 2B had more homers. But there's just something about him that doesn't "do it" for me.

Hard to find a comparable player among modern era HOF 2B:
Alomar
Biggio
Joe Morgan
Sandberg

2nd was a little late to the party, but it seems like we're getting more and more power and 3-4 hole type hitters in the middle infield.

In the 90s/00s we had Arod, Nomar, Jeter, Tejada. Now in the 00s/10s we have the same thing at 2nd with Altuve, Utley, Cano, Pedroia.

Seen a lot on twitter that are upset that Schilling isn't likely to get it. I have never really understand the argument for Schilling as a HOFer.

2001-2004 were dominant, but aside from that, his numbers are merely decent. I'm sure the advanced metrics may paint a better picture, but he's just someone that I don't see as a HOFer.

aggie1906 said:

---

2nd was a little late to the party, but it seems like we're getting more and more power and 3-4 hole type hitters in the middle infield.

In the 90s/00s we had Arod, Nomar, Jeter, Tejada. Now in the 00s/10s we have the same thing at 2nd with Altuve, Utley, Cano, Pedroia.

---

Yeah, it's definitely the era of 2B right now. So many great ones in the league. Dozier, Odor, Murphy, Kinsler, Segura, etc.

A lot had to do with his postseason run wit Boston and the bloody sock.

He was also a 3 time Cy Young Runner up. His teammate Randy 2x and then the Rocket in 04.

His WAR is similar(just behind) to Tom Glavine, Nolan Ryan, Mike Mussina, and Pedro.

Yeah, I figured the bloody sock and postseason were weighing heavily into the pro-Schilling camp. And, as I said, I'm sure there are some advanced metrics that are more favorable to him.

My thing with him is the inconsistency throughout his career. He had a losing record in 9 of his 20 seasons, and while the W/L stat is not necessarily the best indicator, his career numbers look to be all over the place. It's probably the lack of consistency that is driving me the craziest with him. His advanced numbers are better than Mussina, but Mussina was consistent which is probably why it seems why many find it more palatable to put him in.

Duck Patrol said:

---

I think folks are more wary of Pudge being associated with PEDs just because of the culture he was around when he was with the Rangers (Canseco & company). I've never thought he's taken PEDs. And certainly never thought Biggs did.

Not knocking the Rangers...just pointing out they had quite a few big names that got caught up in it.

---

So many people don't seem to get it. Almost everyone was using.

Can you provide a link that backs up that statement? I don't think that everyone was doing it.

Duck Patrol said:

---

Can you provide a link that backs up that statement? I don't think that everyone was doing it.

---

Everyone? Of course not. Far more than were listed in the Mitchell Report or who have tested positive? Absolutely. Everyone in that era will have some degree of suspicion simply because it's impossible to prove who exactly never used.

Oh I see. You're asking me to provide some kind of outside research for a topic that we're all speculating on because we all know there is no definitive proof one way or the other. That's a nice trick.That being said, I've seen an article where Jose Canseco estimated the usage be over 80%. I'm not going to take the time to try to find it because I don't believe your question to be a genuine search for truth. To my knowledge, he's told the truth about the issue to date.

My argument is based on the evidence that I've witnessed. I've witnessed a generation of star baseball players play well into their 40's. Ten years later, with medical advances and conditioning techniques refined, the players at the same level are rarely making it past 34. Home run totals soared to record heights in the late 90's and early 2000's and then declined the moment PED suspicion clouded the game. You can choose to bury your head in the sand and pretend that it was an isolated issue amongst a few "cheaters". I prefer to just observe the obvious.

RetiredAg said:

---

Duck Patrol said:

---

Can you provide a link that backs up that statement? I don't think that everyone was doing it.

---

Everyone? Of course not. Far more than were listed in the Mitchell Report or who have tested positive? Absolutely. Everyone in that era will have some degree of suspicion simply because it's impossible to prove who exactly never used.

---

Agreed, but some will naturally have more suspicion than others. Such is the case in Pudge vs Biggio.

hawk1689 said:

---

Oh I see. You're asking me to provide some kind of outside research for a topic that we're all speculating on because we all know there is no definitive proof one way or the other. That's a nice trick.That being said, I've seen an article where Jose Canseco estimated the usage be over 80%. I'm not going to take the time to try to find it because I don't believe your question to be a genuine search for truth. To my knowledge, he's told the truth about the issue to date.

My argument is based on the evidence that I've witnessed. I've witnessed a generation of star baseball players play well into their 40's. Ten years later, with medical advances and conditioning techniques refined, the players at the same level are rarely making it past 34. Home run totals soared to record heights in the late 90's and early 2000's and then declined the moment PED suspicion clouded the game. You can choose to bury your head in the sand and pretend that it was an isolated issue amongst a few "cheaters". I prefer to just observe the obvious.

---

Not a trick, just a simple question. I don't trust Canseco for one second. How did he arrive at 80%? Did he do a poll of all players? A sample of players?

And every evidence item of your "proof" is either false or has another explanation. Can you bring up a stat that shows players are not playing "well into their 40s?" Go look it up on Wikipedia. It's always been a thing. It's not something new.

The number of home run totals can be explained by the "few" cheaters. They were hitting 60 and 70+ with ease. Doesn't have to mean that 80% of players were cheating; it can also mean the top guys caught using them were just hitting that many more home runs.

I'm not saying that only the ones named are guilty. I'm just saying that there is zero proof that 80% of players used them. There's probably a happy middle ground.

I think there were different levels of users. Some guys used them religiously. Some just to get healthy faster. Others might have tried them once or twice or only used them to get through the doldrums of the season. I think they were very prevalent in the game, but taking them doesn't make everyone a power hitter. They enhance the player, whether they're a power hitter, gap-to-gap doubles hitter, or a pitcher. That's why it's so hard to try to pick out potential users. The power hitters get the most suspicion, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were just as many, if not more guys using that never hit 20 home runs in a season.

Quote:

---

The number of home run totals can be explained by the "few" cheaters. They were hitting 60 and 70+ with ease. Doesn't have to mean that 80% of players were cheating; it can also mean the top guys caught using them were just hitting that many more home runs.

---

Nope.

http://www.businessinsider.com/mlb-home-runs-way-up-2016-9

The article isn't relevant to the discussion but the graph shows the number of 20+ home run hitters doubling after the strike and then declining after the Mitchell report. Bonds and McGwire took the heat, but there were plenty of middle infielders and leadoff hitters suddenly smacking 15 or 20.

hawk1689 said:

---

Quote:

---

The number of home run totals can be explained by the "few" cheaters. They were hitting 60 and 70+ with ease. Doesn't have to mean that 80% of players were cheating; it can also mean the top guys caught using them were just hitting that many more home runs.

---

Nope.

http://www.businessinsider.com/mlb-home-runs-way-up-2016-9

The article isn't relevant to the discussion but the graph shows the number of 20+ home run hitters doubling after the strike and then declining after the Mitchell report. Bonds and McGwire took the heat, but there were plenty of middle infielders and leadoff hitters suddenly smacking 15 or 20.

---

I don't doubt many guys benefited from PEDs. But there was a flurry of new, smaller ballparks opening in that time period and I would be curious to see how much of that jump can be attributed to the new ballparks (Arlington, Cleveland, etc.)

Not saying its hugely significant, but just curious.

And as the graph acknowledges, the league expanded by 4 teams during that time period including one in Denver...

3 players alone hit 20 home runs for the Rockies their first season and 4 hit 20 home runs in the first season at Coors Field.

So why are they so much lower over the last several years?

Didn't they start putting the balls in a humidor in like 2008 or so at Coors Field?

Outside of this year it has been trending downward pretty steady.

Duck Patrol said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

Duck Patrol said:

---

Can you provide a link that backs up that statement? I don't think that everyone was doing it.

---

Everyone? Of course not. Far more than were listed in the Mitchell Report or who have tested positive? Absolutely. Everyone in that era will have some degree of suspicion simply because it's impossible to prove who exactly never used.

---

Agreed, but some will naturally have more suspicion than others. Such is the case in Pudge vs Biggio.

---

But I don't think you can make a case, using statistics, that is convincing that either used. The only case against Pudge are the body changes and the "God only knows" comment about the Mitchell Report. Looking at his stats, there's no logical way to take them and conclude he used.

Personally, I think if you are opposed to voting for suspected users for the HOF, then the only criteria that should be used are inclusion on the Mitchell Report or a positive test. Aside from that, it's merely speculation and certainly shouldn't be used in HOF voting.

Update on HOF Tracker - 11 ballots received (2.4%)

Pudge, Bagwell and Raines leading the way very early on. All 3 have received 10 votes so far. Vlad and Hoffman with 8.

How do y'all feel about Vlad?
Just short of 1500 RBI, just over 2500hits
Career ops at .933.
He pretty much never had a bad year
9x AS, 8x SS, 1x MVP
He had an absolute cannon.

I think he'll get in easily. The only question is this year or next. I'd absolutely vote for him this year, but I don't think he'll get in until next.

Looking at his year-by-year numbers, it's simply astonishing how consistently elite he was. It seems like he was overshadowed simply because he played in the same league as Bonds and Pujols for half of his career.

His 2002 season blows me away:
.336 BA,
1.010 OPS
39 HR
111 RBI
206 hits (led league)
106 runs
40 SB

And finished 4th in the MVP vote!

I know he's a world class cheater but Bonds had a WAR of 11.8 that year. That is insane.

Easy to make the argument he should have been ahead of Pujos & Berkman.

aggie1906 said:

---

I know he's a world class cheater but Bonds had a WAR of 11.8 that year. That is insane.

Easy to make the argument he should have been ahead of Pujos & Berkman.

---

Yeah, a .582 OBP is just video game-like. Guy drew 198 walks. Crazy. Roids....sure. But damn he was fun to watch swing a bat.

I think Randy Johnson had an argument at MVP runner up as well. He was a monster that year.

Vote Update (and yes, I'm aware that it's ridiculously early in the voting process):

15 Ballots Received
Pudge Rodriguez (14 - 93%)
Jeff Bagwell (13 - 87%)
Tim Raines (13 - 87%)
Barry Bonds (11 - 73%)
Roger Clemens (11 - 73%)
Vladimir Guerrero (11 - 73%)
Trevor Hoffman (11 - 73%)
Lee Smith (9 - 60%)
Mike Mussina (8 - 53%)
Edgar Martinez (8 - 53%)

David Maril only used 8 of his 10 votes and voted for Bonds, Clemens, Hoffman, Mussina, & Manny over B****.

Steroid suspension isn't being held against him. I guess he's just a ****ing hater and appreciates good, but not great pitching.

aggie1906 said:

---

David Maril only used 8 of his 10 votes and voted for Bonds, Clemens, Hoffman, Mussina, & Manny over B****.

Steroid suspension isn't being held against him. I guess he's just a ****ing hater and appreciates good, but not great pitching.

---

Yeah, I'm fine w/ Bonds and Clemens. As I've looked more and more at Hoffman, I just don't see it. He'll make it in, but I wouldn't vote for him. Mussina is a borderline guy, but I'd probably vote for him but would be fine if he didn't make it. Manny is an interesting case for sure, since he actually was suspended for PEDs. If steroids aren't an issue for a voter, I can see Manny over Bagwell. But I don't see how anyone can include Mussina and Hoffman, but leave Bagwell off.

RetiredAg said:

---

aggie1906 said:

---

David Maril only used 8 of his 10 votes and voted for Bonds, Clemens, Hoffman, Mussina, & Manny over B****.

Steroid suspension isn't being held against him. I guess he's just a ****ing hater and appreciates good, but not great pitching.

---

Yeah, I'm fine w/ Bonds and Clemens. As I've looked more and more at Hoffman, I just don't see it. He'll make it in, but I wouldn't vote for him. Mussina is a borderline guy, but I'd probably vote for him but would be fine if he didn't make it. Manny is an interesting case for sure, since he actually was suspended for PEDs. If steroids aren't an issue for a voter, I can see Manny over Bagwell. But I don't see how anyone can include Mussina and Hoffman, but leave Bagwell off.

---

I PEDs are no issue then I think it is fair to rank it Bonds, Manny, Bagwell in that order. No issue at all. That is how I would do it. If you are worried about allowing PED users in the hall then Manny is out. Then you have Bonds who someone went to jail for to avoid snitching. He's out. Bagwell never failed a test or was on any report, but people have still somehow held it against him.

As for pitching I actually have been pro closers in the HOF. Maybe I over value them, but if we define it as a true role, like we have fore years and years now, then I think the best of the best should be in. That includes Hoffman, Wagner, & maybe even Lee Smith. I haven't looked at the #s in a while.

To me Mussina is 1st team hall of very good. Only a 20 game winner once. You take his prime years (92-01) and he 16-9 with a 3.52 ERA 1.166 WHIP 170 Ks. Compare him to Curt. His 10 year prime nets out to be 15-9 with a 3.25 ERA 1.074 WHIP 224 Ks. Most people have Schilling out as well and to me he'd be a lock in before MM.

Quote:

---

As for pitching I actually have been pro closers in the HOF. Maybe I over value them, but if we define it as a true role, like we have fore years and years now, then I think the best of the best should be in. That includes Hoffman, Wagner, & maybe even Lee Smith. I haven't looked at the #s in a while.

---

Closers are hard for me to get a read on. I have no issue with closers in the HOF, but just something about Hoffman never really sat right with me. I may be completely off, and it very well could be a result of following AL baseball much closer than NL. 7 of his 18 seasons he had a ERA north of 3.00. Only twice did he go sub 2.00. Granted the 601 saves are damn impressive, but just something about him never sat well with me.