This past Tuesday I posted a proposal for a series of votes to elect members to a circle of baseball greats, with competitive elections organized by player birth-year. The post seemed to generate enough interest to try out the voting in practice to see how it goes. The comments to that thread offered a number of creative and productive suggestions regarding changes to the rules that I had initially proposed, and this first vote will incorporate several of those proposed changes. I’ll review the rules, as now amended, after the “Read the rest of this entry” thingamabob.
(1) Each vote will bring in a class of eligible players that will include all players born in a particular year who played at least 10 years in the majors or, alternatively, reached 20 Wins Above Replacement (baseball-reference version) — that is, 20 overall Wins Above Replacement for position players and 20 pitching Wins Above Replacement for pitchers.
(2) In order to count as an eligible ballot, your vote must include three eligible players, no more and no less. The one player who is named on the most eligible ballots in a voting round wins induction into the “Circle of Greats”.
(3) Each vote (after this first one) will also include as eligible players, in addition to that particular birth-year class, a set of holdovers whose eligibility has been extended from previous rounds of voting. A player’s eligibility can be extended as follows: (a) Any player who appears on 50% or more of the eligible ballots cast without winning the election has his eligibility extended for four additional rounds; (b) any player who is not elected, and appears on fewer than 50% of the ballots, but is one of the top eight players in that round in terms of how many ballots he appears on, has his eligibility extended for one more round; (c) any player who does not make the top eight in ballot appearances but does appear on 20% or more of the ballots has his eligibility extended for one more round. Eligibility extensions can be cumulative, so that a player who appears on at least 50% of the ballots three rounds in a row would go into the next round with a bank of nine rounds of extensions.
(4) My only suggested guideline as to who to vote for is to rely on the player’s contribution as a player in the major leagues, not for play in other leagues and not for contributions in non-playing roles such as manager, umpire, executive, journalist or broadcaster. Other than that, you the voters need to decide which players most deserve to be inducted into a group called the “Circle of Greats”.
(5) For now, you should cast your votes in the comments. Voters are encouraged to explain, discuss and debate your votes, but somewhere in your comments you should specify the three players you are voting for, so that your ballot can be tallied. Voting will remain open for seven days (to the minute) from when this post appears, after which the voting for this round will be considered closed (you can continue to comment, of course, but votes after that will not count). For the moment I’ll keep manual count of your votes and report the final tally. At some point we may move to a poll mechanism, but initially let’s see how the manual count process goes. Also for now, I propose to bar vote-changing — that is, each voter’s first eligible ballot in a round is fixed, and any later ballots by that voter will not count. But I’m open to further discussion on that question.
Enough with the preliminaries. Here are the lists of eligible position players and pitchers born in 1968. Pick your three guys and vote. It’s your civic duty.
Position Players:
Roberto Alomar
Carlos Baerga
Jeff Bagwell
Derek Bell
Chad Curtis
Tom Goodwin
Dave Hansen
Jeff Kent
Chuck Knoblauch
Randy Knorr
Derrick May
Brett Mayne
Jose Offerman
John Olerud
Keith Osik
Dean Palmer
Eddie Perez
Mike Piazza
Curtis Pride
Tim Salmon
Gary Sheffield
J.T. Snow
Sammy Sosa
Matt Stairs
Ed Taubensee
Frank Thomas
Jose Vizcaino
Bernie Williams
Pitchers:
Pedro Astacio
Rod Beck
Brain Bohanon
Giovanni Carrara
Mark Clark
Scott Erickson
Chris Haney
Pat Hentgen
Todd Jones
Darryl Kile
Curt Leskanic
Al Levine
Ramon Martinez
Kent Mercker
Davew Mlicki
Mike Mussina
Denny Neagle
Hideo Nomo
Paul Qunatrill
Scott Radinsky
Shane Reynolds
Rudy Seanez
Brian Shouse
Russ Springer
Rick White
Mike Williams
As much as I wanted to select a pitcher, I couldn’t take Mike Mussina (career ERA+ 123) over Jeff Bagwell, Mike Piazza, or Frank Thomas.
I considered Roberto Alomar, Jeff Kent, and John Olerud, mainly due to the defensive “reputations” of Alomar and Olerud, and the fact that Kent hit more home runs than any 2nd baseman in history. But in the end I’m not so sure that Alomar’s (10)and Olerud’s (3) collections of Gold Gloves are commensurate with their respective career dWAR ratings of 2.4 for Alomar and -2.1 for Olerud. Kent’s -0.7 dWAR and career OPS+ of 123 wasn’t enough for me either, nor were Alomar’s 116 OPS+ and Olerud’s 129 OPS+ compared to the career OPS+ values for Bags, Hurt, and Piazza.
Bagwell – career OPS+ 149
Thomas – career OPS+ 156
Piazza – career OPS+ 143
Three votes: Bagwell, Piazza, Thomas
Two of the greatest first basemen in history and the most devastating offensive force ever behind the plate.
It’s tough to leave off Alomar and Mussina because I would vote for both of them for the HOF, but I’d rather have Bagwell, Piazza, or Thomas. Sheffield, Kent, and Sosa were fantastic players but not quite at the level of the others (in my view). Bernie, Knoblauch, and Salmon all deserve mention for outstanding careers and in a weaker year I could see voting for one of them, but not for this year. I fully expect to be casting votes for players from this class over the next few rounds of voting (even for players I didn’t vote for like Alomar and Mussina).
Bagwell, Mussina, Piazza.
The fact that my vote represents a straight “Hall of Stats” ticket is mere coincidence. 🙂
Bagwell, Thomas, Mussina
Alomar, Thomas, Piazza
Frank Thomas, Mike Piazza, Jeff Bagwell.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but Piazza, Bagwell and Thomas.
Did you know that if Thomas and Bagwell make the Hall, they will be the first HOFers born on the exact same day? May 27, 1968.
Vote: Bagwell, Frank Thomas, Piazza.
Bagwell – average 5.78 WAR per 162 games!
Thomas – WAR per 162 of 4.86 and 156 OPS+
Piazza – WAR per 162 of 4.75 and 143 OPS+, one of the best hitting catchers of all-time.
Mussina will have to wait his turn.
Jeff, since you’ve cited WAR/162 for Thomas (4.86) and Piazza (4.75), I feel obliged to add that Mussina’s WAR/33 GS was 4.81, right between them. So I can’t see either of the hitters clearly deserving an earlier “turn” than Mussina on that score.
But you have to make some allowance for the fact that Piazza was a catcher, deflating his offensive numbers due to the toll taken on his body. It also clearly shortened his career, deflating his total career WAR. Catchers should not be graded on the same WAR scale as other players for this reason. I would set the WAR threshold for a Hall of Fame catcher at somewhere around 45, which makes Piazza a shoo-in.
1. Bagwell
2. Thomas
3. Piazza
bstar @21: “you have to make some allowance for the fact that Piazza was a catcher”
True — that’s why I voted for him, along with Mussina and Bagwell.
As to my use of WAR/33 GS as the pitching equivalent of WAR/162 for a position player: I dunno, it just seemed right to me, since most top pitchers make 33+ starts per year, and 32 GS would represent less than 1/5 of a year, and it didn’t occur to me to use a fractional number.
But I’m OK with using WAR/32.4 GS, and acknowledging that Mussina grades below Thomas on that score. (Mussina vs. Thomas is the comparison I’m interested in.)
But then, let’s also acknowledge that WAR/162 is kind to Thomas, who missed the majority of 2001 and 2004-05, and played half-time in his final year. On a plain WAR/year basis, Mussina comes out ahead, 4.3 to 3.7.
Is Mussina the most underrated pitcher of all time? (or #2 behind Blyleven) I was shocked to see his career WAR. Would have never guessed it was that high. On the all-time list, he’s right behind Carlton and right ahead of Gibson, despite pitching fewer innings than either of those two (a LOT fewer than Carlton). And yet, why is it that no one thinks of him as being in Carlton or Gibson’s class?
Further to Ed’s comment #61:
I think there’s a general perception that Mussina had a very low peak for a HOF candidate. I grant that he does not fit with the high-peak HOFers, but if you compare him to the modern HOF group as a whole, his peak is just fine. Compare him to the 50 HOF starting pitchers who had at least 1500 IP since 1901:
7+ WAR seasons — Mussina had 1 such year. Nineteen of the 50 HOFers had either no 7-WAR seasons (10 guys) or just 1 (nine).
6+ WAR seasons — Mussina had 3. Twenty of the 50 HOFers had 2 or less, including Hunter, Ryan, Sutton, Wynn, Drysdale, and even Whitey Ford. Meanwhile, Carlton, Dean and Miner Brown had 3, same as Mussina. (Only 3 active pitchers have 3+ years at 6+ WAR: Halladay (5), Johan (4) and Sabathia (3).)
5+ WAR seasons — Mussina had 7. Thirty-five of the 50 HOFers had 6 or less. Only 11 had more than 7.
4+ WAR seasons — Mussina had 12. Forty-two of the 50 HOFers had 11 or less. Only five had more than 12.
These are some of the reasons Mussina has a stout 162 “Hall Rating” over at the Hall of Stats (with 100 being the threshold for induction).
JA @57, your WAR/full season numbers had Mussina edging out Piazza, not Thomas or anyone else. That’s why I brought up a different WAR scale for catchers. If you either do that or adjust your pitcher “full year” number, Mussina finishes 4th behind Bagwell, Thomas, and Piazza in the WAR rate stat category. But not by much. Your WAR/actual year argument is certainly compelling, though.
Also, where did the 33 GS come from as a full season? I would use 162/every 5th game = 32.4 GS. Using that number, Mussina’a WAR per 32.4 GS would be 4.72, less than Bagwell, Thomas, and Piazza.
Mike Piazza, Jeff Kent, Frank Thomas
To keep the trend going: Piazza, Bagwell & Thomas
My biggest regrets are Alomar & Mussina
I’ve decided on PED users to go by the “would they have made it without them” philosophy: I think that Sosa is a clear no (and I think his defensive contributions early in his career are grossly overstated) and they at least move Sheffield down a couple of notches.
In another year I may have voted for Kent as well.
Finally, just wanted to give a nod to Olerud & Salmon- 2 favorites of mine in their playing days that certainly don’t belong here and probably fall short of the HOF but nonetheless were excellent players.
Alomar, Piazza, Mussina
Bagwell, Mussina, Piazza. Tough choices.
Frank Thomas is tops on my list. The Big Hurt had 8 straight 100+ RBI, BB and Runs scored seasons while his “lows” were all star caliber in avg .308, SLG of .536 and an OB% of .426…Simply unheard of.
Mike Piazza is second. From the ages of 24-32 he never hit below .300 or had fewer than 92-93 RBI(and that was due to a lack of AB’s, 405 and 435). To this day I still Disagree with his 2nd place finish for MVP in ’97(.362/.431/.638, 201 hits, 104 runs, 40 HR and 124 RBI. I know Larry Walker was amazing that year but those numbers for a catcher are insane!
Jeff Kent is my third choice. All time leader in HR by a 2nd baseman, 12 total years with 20 or more and eight 100+ RBI seasons and finished in the top 9 for MVP four times with one win(2000)in a six year span. Alomar was a better pure hitter and far better base stealer but lacked the power(377-210) and RBI totals(1522-1134) Kent had overall with over 600 more career at bats. Defensively Alomar was better but is slightly overrated where Kent was a bit underrated but nothing but average at 2nd base.
Mussina, Alomar and Bagwell would be my next 3 choices.
IMO Frank Thomas is the best of the best of veterans born in 68′, while I’m not a huge “Big Hurt” fan the man could simply rake. He was just extremely consistant with a bat on his shoulder. Kent would get my vote but he was surely with fans and media and that really turned me off, and Piazza, Sosa and Sheffield are linked with steroids and yes I know this is not part of the equation. with that said my list would look something like this:
1. Frank Thomas
2. Mike Mussina
3. Jeff Bagwell
Tom @4 and John Z @15 got it “right:”
Bagwell, Mussina, Thomas
That’s my preferred order, too, not that it matters. Really, really wanted to vote for Piazza, but them’s the breaks.
To be clear, I actually disagree with the reasoning John Z puts forward; I have no problem voting for steroid-accused players. I just happen to think that Bagwell is the best player on the ballot, followed by Mussina and Thomas. Then I have Piazza, Alomar, Sosa, Sheffield, Olerud, Kent, and Knoblauch. But that’s based purely on stats, not at all on ‘roids or anything else.
Bagwell, piazza, Thomas.
Bagwell, Thomas, Piazza
Thomas, Bagwell, Piazza
Bagwell, Thomas, Piazza, with apologies to Alomar and Kent.
Alomar, Bagwell, Piazza
Alomar, Thomas…and Piazza over Bagwell.
Thomas, Bagwell, Piazza
Should move on: Alomsr, Sheffield, Kent Mussina, Sosa
Alomar, Thomas, Bagwell
Gosh, this is really, really hard.
Hard to believe a guy like Alomar can’t sniff this list.
1. Jeff Bagwell
2. Mike Piazza
3. Mike Mussina
Kills me not to put Thomas, but them’s the breaks.
This is too hard.
I can’t do it.
Thomas, Bagwell, Piazza, Alomar, Mussina.
Can’t cut out two of them.
I’ll pass on this game.
___________________
I like, though, that there is a player on this list whom I had never heard of:
Keith Osik
There is no crying in baseball! No crying!
–Tom Hanks as Jimmy Dugan
🙂
Piazza, Alomar and Mussina.
Why are we limited to three?
The point of the exercise is to require you to compare top players, not just to make an abstract decision about where the edge line between the players who deserve to be in and those who are not. The question is, which three of the current eligible and deserving players are MOST deserving. If you can put whoever you want on the ballot, the debates repeatedly focus on the same group of players who are in the gray area, just on the edge of deserving or not. But if each election is about which of a group are the MOST deserving, then the focus turns to comparing the qualifications of even the very best guys. A bit of a different challenge than the same old HOF debates. Kind of like Andy’s Mt. Rushmore exercise a while back.
Bagwell, Alomar and Piazza.
Pretty easy, actually. These three just seem to be a notch (or more) above the rest (well, maybe half a notch above Mussina and Kent).
Oops. Somehow missed Thomas. He’s clearly on same level as the three I voted for. I’m sure Frank will get in, though, in this round or a future one.
Birtelcom: “Thingambob”?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xrfbKTG_xE
I’m saving “doo-hickey” for next time.
OK, last one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8O5yY_JFVM
More importantly, I’d go Bagwell, Piazza, Mussina. Hate leaving Thomas off, though.
It would help if all of the players were linked straight to b-r so voters wouldn’t have to search for each player. It’s obviously not a big deal, but it would certainly be a nice touch.
Anyway, my vote is Bagwell, Piazza, and Thomas.
Good point. I’m actually surprised that this site doesn’t use the player linker automatically.
Also, here are partial results to this point, in case anyone’s interested. If not, I’ll give the good ol’ fashioned
**************SPOILER ALERT******************
Through 27 ballots (28 if we count Voomo’s blank, which doesn’t count as per the rules – suck on that BBWAA; blank ballots don’t count!!!), here are the standings:
Piazza – 23 (85%)
Bagwell – 21 (78%)
Thomas – 19 (70%)
Mussina – 9 (33%)
Alomar – 7 (26%)
Kent – 2 (7%)
If these hold (and I understand the rules correctly), all six would move on for another round of voting. Bagwell and Thomas would guarantee themselves at least 4 more rounds.
Also, I think vote-amending is fine. I see the logistical reason you wouldn’t want to do it (could get complicated), but if we’re having a good discussion and it inspires someone to change, I think that’s fine. But that’s just my opinion. Also, even if you run these things consecutively, week after week after week, it’s going to take like 2 years to get all the way back to Deacon White’s birth year. And in the meantime, we’d (presumably) want to add birthyears 1969 and 1970. Do you know how you might handle such a thing? So maybe 7 days is a little long for a wait. But it’s up to you. And, of course, all of this hinges on going back that far, AND actually having a desire to complete the project. Which, again, is up to you, birtelcom. Those are just some thoughts you can take or leave.
@10, Hartvig, I understand the “would they have made it without them” philosophy, since I’ve used that myself, yet it’s also a slippery slope as evidenced by Piazza and Bagwell. None of us know who take PEDs, but I think it’s likely both of those players did.
Meanwhile, someone like Mike Mussina is generally being slotted behind both of these players for Hall induction, yet I’d guess he’s in that group of players who didn’t take PEDs. He was renowned for his refusal to do weight training, even during his later years when he was losing velocity and the Yankees wanted him to alter his training. He was pretty old school in his workouts, running/throwing. So here he is, a pitcher in the DH league, AL East, extreme hitters’ era, facing PEDster hitters, but he’s not really gaining any extra credit for most likely being clean, yet we’re penalizing players on the other side for not being clean.
I’m not questioning your choices since I absolutly would vote for Piazza and Bagwell. I just don’t know about the reasoning in their cases, assuming both would have made it without PEDs (if they took them). We know the story of Piazza and the physical changes he undertook while in the minors. He could have been taking PEDs his entire career. Same with Bagwell. Yet then we have the case of Sosa. There is rumor that he tested positive for something in 2003, but it’s all just rumor.
So, yeah, it’s all a slippery slope. I know it because I keep sliding down it myself when I try and pick HOFers!
Yeah, I don’t even try to pretend that I know for sure if I have it right. And it’s hard to keep all the factors in mind- if you keep Palmeiro out because he wouldn’t have made it without cheating, does Fred McGriff get extra credit because his performance suffers by comparison? Do we know for certain who did & didn’t cheat? Are steroids a bigger sin than amphetamines or the spitball?
For reasons it would take far too many words to explain I think it’s necessary to make some adjustments for 2 factors- PED’s & racism- in ways that can’t really be measured. And while I understand that can be almost heresy on a stat site like this I figure it’s my vote and I’m going to factor those things in as fairly as I possibly can.
And you’re right we can’t know for certain about Piazza & Bagwell but unless I have evidence to the contrary it’s not unreasonable to attribute physical or performance changes in a 20 year old to un-enhanced causes. If they happen in a 29 year old I’m inclined to be far more suspicious.
Here is my question (this is not meant as an attack on MikeD or Hartvig’s response or a question just for them) – why is it only the big guys who take a hit? Why doesn’t Juan Pierre or Kenny Lofton or Jose Reyes get dinged? I don’t know what they looked like under their shirts – maybe they were (are) super-ripped just not huge. After years of cyclists, track stars, and swimmers being accused of all sorts of doping and PEDs, why is it just the home run hitters who come under suspicion? My gut feeling is that HR hitters come under suspicion because people care about HR records much more than they care about steroids and PEDs. Someone steals 131 bases in a year – that’s just cool, even if the guy does look like Ben Johnson. But someone hits 75 HRs in a season or 20 HRs in a month – he must be on something.
Speaking of whom – look at Ben Johnson (the track and field star) – really, just do a Google image search for him. We know he used various performance enhancing substances, and he doesn’t really look like McGwire or Canseco or Sosa or Bagwell or Piazza or anyone else who is suspected of using PEDs. He probably looks more like Jose Reyes than any of those guys (Reyes was in one of those body issues by ESPN – take a look at those pics and tell me he doesn’t have a body type similar to Ben Johnson’s). Now I’m not saying that Reyes is using, but players don’t necessarily need to take substances that will make them huge behemoth HR hitters.
And this is why none of that factors into my decision-making – I have no idea who is using because it could have been anyone and I refuse to not vote for the “big guys” when plenty of “little guys” have tested positive and have body types that are similar to those of known users in other sports. For all any of us know Roberto Alomar could have been a PED user – you really can’t just look at body type given that there is a mountain of evidence in other sports where people have used PEDs and none of them really look like Arnold Schwarzenegger.
I’m fully aware that it’s possible to use steroids & not end up looking like Arnold Schwarzenegger. I’m also fully aware that we will never know for certain who was clean and everyone who wasn’t.
But we do know for a fact that some people did use: Clemens, Bonds, Canseco, McGwire & others. Some by their own admission, others by our legal system or drug tests plus there’s the Mitchell Report to go by.
As far as relying solely on physical appearance (plus change in performance) that is pretty much limited to Sosa. And it not just his increase in bulk- his head got bigger. Literally. Like 5 hat sizes. Look at a picture of him as a rookie in Texas and then when he was competing with McGwire for the home run crown. The ONLY explanation for that is Human Growth Hormone. It’s the same thing that happened to Barry Bonds. And it’s not something that’s going to happen if you use it a couple of times like Andy Pettitte did- you need to use it over a length of time. Couple that with an abrupt mid-career change in performance and in my book that’s enough evidence to make you guilty.
Like I said- I’m fully aware what I’m doing isn’t perfect. But when I think there’s enough evidence to satisfy MY criteria then that’s how I’m going to vote.
As far as relying solely on physical appearance (plus change in performance) that is pretty much limited to Sosa…
Not completely true. Sosa is one of 104 players
according to the NYTimes who tested positive
in baseball’s “anonymous”, 2003 survey.
At the time there were no penalties.
Although Sosa’ name was wrongfully leaked, it
doesn’t alter the truth.
Judge Sosa based on your eyes and feel no guilt.
MikeD, why in the world is it “likely” that Jeff Bagwell did steroids?
What proof do you have? Is it just his body, which he pretty much always had?
Also, there’s really no jump in his numbers that we see other than the rise in offense in ’93 and ’94 onward, a trend which the entire league also followed. I see no artificial spike in his numbers after that. Where are they?
He found his power stroke in ’94 at age 26 and put up an all-time great season with an OPS over 1.200. He put up 4 more 1.000+ OPS seasons through age 32, then began a decline at age 33. What’s unusual about that or suggests steroids?
I think Bagwell gets unfairly grouped in with the users for one reason: he looked like he lifted weights. Making the assumption that just because he naturally made himself stronger for the game of baseball that he was a steroids user is unfair and, in the complete absence of any evidence to prove that allegation whatsoever, remains a dubious claim at best.
Another thing to consider with Bagwell is the Astro’s moving to (then) Enron Field in 2000- his triple crown numbers stayed pretty consistent for a few years but his OPS+ was showing normal decline as he aged.
bstar, I wouldn’t take it too seriously. It’s an opinion. We all have them. The PED era of MLB was ignored, and thus approved, at worst tacitly, and one can argue directly by MLB, the owners, the commissioner, the players, the media and, yes, the fans. No PED user, suspected or proven, has been banned from MLB and put on its ineligibility list that includes the likes of Shoeless Joe Jackson and Pete Rose. In other words, jut as MLB was fine when it knew that players were taking PEDs, MLB is also more than fine if suspected and proven PED users are elected to the HOF. So am I.
I already said that I would vote for Jeff Bagwell, even though I believe he was a likely PED user. Doesn’t mean he was a PED user. Just means that I believe it to be so. I could be wrong. I’m open to changing my opinon, but as of right now, if someone put a gun to my head, and I had to answer with either, “Yes he took PEDs” or “No, he didn’t,” I wouldn’t hesitate in saying Yes. If I said No, I would be sweating heavily believing I was in the process of committing a unique form of suicide. So if you’re upset that I believe Bagwell in some form or manner at some time took PEDs, then ask yourself the question. How would you answer if the gun was to your head?
As said, no scarlet letter to me. I don’t think less of Jeff Bagwell if he took PEDs, for doing what was approved (yes, I say approved!) by all levels of MLB and for maximizing his performance level on the field. Hardly a sin to me. I don’t know for sure who did what, what it did to help them, how consistently it helped them, etc. I’m usually the one here arguing that many different changes happened in the game to cause the offensive explosion, and PEDs has become the easy, fall-back excuse, clouding out many other reasons. I believe PEDs were a contributor, but no where near the level many others believe.
Last, you say his body didn’t change, but that’s not so. He did get substantially larger. He also admitted to taking andro in 1998 before Mark McGwire admitted same. No problem since it wasn’t banned, but yeah, it says something whether people want to see it or not.
Yet I would vote for him for the HOF.
…at “best” tacitly, at worst directly…
One day I’ll take up proofing my notes again before hitting send!
Piazza, Bagwell, and Alomar.
Bagwell
Piazza
Kent
Piazza, Thomas and Alomar. Bagwell and Mussina are fine candidates too.
Bagwell
Thomas
Piazza
Thomas: The best power hitter.
Mussina: The best pitcher
Alomar: The best all-rounder.
Mike Piazza
Mike Mussina
Sammy Sosa
1. Jeff Bagwell
2. Frank Thomas
3. John Olerud
I didn’t think that I had a particularly liking for the first base position, but I guess I do.
Olerud’s too good to go voteless, even though my objective analysis would rank him lower. Mussina, for example is certainly more worthy a “Great”. Perhaps I am still holding a small grudge because I liked him better as Baltimore’s ace than as a Yankee.
As for Alomar, I left him out because he is already in the HOF and I wonder if that is part of why he isn’t getting many votes so far.
Not sure why I didn’t really consider Piazza, probably because it looks like he doesn’t need the votes for this so far…
Mussina – Piazza – Stairs
In my first opportunity to cast a Circle of Greatness vote I am honored to select Matt Stairs for a single great moment he had for the Phillies.
My other 2 choices are more conventional.
Mussina would be held in higher regard if he won a World Championship – which he would have had the Yankees held a lead w/ Mariano Rivera on the mound in gm 7 of the 2001 Series.
1. Thomas
2. Piazza
3. Alomar
Maybe Bagwell suffers because he was a National Leaguer his whole career, and I’m a life-long Red Sox fan- The Big Hurt is a no-brainer to me, easily one of the 3 most impressive hitters of the 90’s, and I’ve just seen sooo many highlights of Piazza and Alomar, they’ve both acieved mythic status in my mind as two of the all-time greats, without having to look at their stats (though I have)… but Bagwell, I dunno, he’s a couple of years short and a couple of p.e.d.’s too far over the line in my book.
I have decided that steroids is a non issue for me. My votes
will be based strictly on what they did on the field.
The reason being is that we will never know definitively who
did what when.
John Z @15 mentions Piazza, Sosa and Sheffield. I know from
friends who played college ball with and against Piazza that the
rumors go back that far. That being said, they all said he could
always rake.
This should not be a shock to any of us who came up in the 1980’s
either lifting weights or playing high school ball.
College guy didn’t get that big over a three month summer hiatus
by just lifting an hour day.
How many of us new someone in high school who went to play major
college football and came back after the first year looking like
Hulk Hogan??
Point being that there is no way to know everyone who did it. These
guys are millionaires, and if one doesn’t think they can use that fortune
to evade drug testing, meet Lance Armstrong.
For a long time MLB had no testing program. Further reason not to consider
steroids.
That being said, I have a top three…
1.Frank Thomas (8 straight seasons of 100 runs, 100 RBI, 100 walks and
at least 20 homers).
Never had an OPS+ below 174 until age 30.
Just like Albert, he was great from the start.
2.Mike Piazza. Those numbers, for a catcher! case closed. The greatest
hitting catcher ever.
3.Jeff Bagwell. Not including his last season of 39 games show me a
bad season.
My vote is:
Mike Mussina
Jeff Bagwell
Mike Piazza
Mussina and Bagwell were easy for me, but the third spot between Alomar, Thomas, and Piazza was tough.
Mike Piazza, Jeff Bagwell, Frank Thomas
I guess another drawback of doing the voting this way is that someone could allow previous votes to influence theirs. I’m not going to do that, of course, so my votes go to:
Jeff Bagwell
Mike Piazza
Roberto Alomar
Obviously, Mussina and Thomas are the top runners up, but I wanted to vote for guys who were among the best at their position in history in this inaugural round. Bagwell and Piazza are definitely in the top ten at their respective positions, and Alomar is arguable.
Piazza, Bagwell and Thomas. All were dominant to an extent that I rarely felt with Mussina.
Take that all you statheads! I FELT it! Just kidding, I’m a stathead too.
You’ve started with 1968…a year that pleased the baseball gods greatly. I can’t stop at three. I forfeit. And I anticipate great angst when you get to some of the leaner years from which no one would make 1968’s Top Fifteen.
JDV, if it helps, remember we’re not really voting for who deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, we’re voting for the three best players in this group. It’s not a yes/no on the HOF vote at all. I think we can all pretty easily see 5+ deserving Hall members, maybe 7 or 8 if you’re a big Hall guy. But that’s not the point. The point is to pick the BEST 3 of the group. This should help with lean years also, which may not contain 3 guys who are HOF’ers to vote for, but there should be worthy holdovers to consider. But if you simply vote for the 3 best, that eliminates that problem also.
Bagwell, Thomas, Piazza
1) Mike Piazza
2) Frank Thomas
3) Roberto Alomar
(in that order)
I also considered:
– Jeff Bagwell (toughest to leave out)
– Jeff Kent (kinda tough to leave out)
– Mike Mussina(tough to leave out)
– John Olerud
– Gary Sheffield (tough to leave out)
– Sammy Sosa (sorta tough to leave out)
– Bernie Williams (not tough to leave out)
REASONING:
1) Mike Piazza – arguably one of the three best catchers ever, behind only Bench and Berra. He was clearly the best hitting catcher, and his defensive shortcomings were overstated in that while he was not a big defensive asset, he was not the severe liability many people thought that he was.
2) Frank Thomas – argably one of the half-dozen best righty hitters ever (also Hornsby/ Foxx/ Mays/ Aaron/ Pujols). Bagwell was a more COMPLETE player, and he had more good-to-excellent seasons, but Thomas had more amazing seasons (basically everything from 1990-97 and 2000).
3) Roberto Alomar – arguably one of the 7-10 best second baseman ever, behind only Lajoie/ Collins/ Hornsby/ Gehringer/ Robinson/ Morgan, in that group with Biggio/Carew/ Sandberg; Grich and Whitaker somewhat behind Alomar. His defense is rated below-average, but I don’t consider it anything less than “good to very good”. …And yes, I know he has about 15 career WAR _ less_ than Bagwell.
I go for the player with a more important defensive position and more defensive value (Alomar vs. Bagwell), except when I don’t (Thomas over Bagwell – Thomas’ real position was “hitter”).
For those who wish to keep up with the tally of votes, or who want to check that I have recorded your ballots accurately, I’ve designed the spreadsheet where I am keeping track of and cumulating your votes as a cloud-based Google Document, readable with the following link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AklDUJiangSrdEtEeU9BQ0UtLW9CSDhCQVRxYU43bHc#gid=0
I’ll update the sheet periodically as new votes are posted.
Minor error: you misspelled Artie Z’s name(he’s #2 on your list). On the other hand, you corrected ancientmariner’s own misspelling of his screen name. 🙂
Artie was my father’s name, so there may be something Freudian about that slip.
And spelling ancientmariner would be an albatross around anyone’s neck.
Haha, of course there could be egg on both of our faces if ancientmainer is from the state of Maine.
1. Alomar
2. Mussina
3. Piazza
Piazza
Mussina
Kent
Okay, so here’s how I determine HOF eligibility, and I’m sure this is too lenient in some people’s opinions:
Tom Verducci (one of my personal favorite journalists) is known to emphasize the greatness of a player’s “peak” seasons (including length of the “peak”) with regard to the HOF, and so I agree that this is quite necessary to measure. I also am a nut for sabermetrics, especially WAR. So, I say that any player whose peak in terms of WAR is at least 5 years with at least 5.0 WAR/162 games is a good candidate for the Hall. This peak is defined by the longest stretch of seasons in which a) both the first and last seasons of the peak have at least 4.0 WAR, and b) at no point during the peak, there are consecutive seasons below 4.0 WAR, one of which is below 3.0 WAR as well (so the peak can contain one outlying year below 3.0 WAR, or multiple consecutive years below 4.0 WAR, but not both at the same time).
By this criterion, there are many that I would consider HOFers on this ballot, although Mussina is the only pitcher here (I think; applying my system to relief pitchers requires a somewhat inconsistent and wildly complicated adjustment). By comparing each player that meets my criterion to the others individually determine the top three, and excluding players I consider to be known ‘roiders (yes, I’m exclusionist when it comes to ‘roiders), I come up with a top three of Jeff “Innocent Until Proven Guilty” Bagwell, Frank Thomas, and Mike Mussina.
OK… after thinking long and hard about who to vote for… Here are my three. The key word I went off of is taking into account each player’s “contribution”, not just their statistical line.
1 – Frank Thomas. For four or five seasons, Frank was the best hitter in baseball, possibly the most feared hitter in baseball, and easily my favorite player to watch hit (not play first, though), even though I am a Mets fan and live in L.A. A rather subjective criteria, but nonetheless, these are my votes.
2 – Jeff Bagwell. The first of two players that I really looked at the word “contribution” for. As a career-long Astro, I just feel like that counts for something more than players who move teams. No, no empirical evidence, just gut and feel on this point. Further, as a lifelong Mets fan, I can tell you what it meant to me when David Wright re-signed, and how much it hurt to watch Seaver, Straw, and Gooden all leave.
3 – ok… here goes nothin. Hideo Nomo. Before you dismiss me entirely, here’s why: Without the SUCCESS (and the Nomo experiment was certainly a success), MLB would be far less willing to have then experimented with guys like Matsui, Sasaki, Kuroda, Okajima, and, of course, Ichiro. Nomo, although he obviously wasn’t first (Murakami’s 13 month experiment in 1964-1965, also a relative success), or even the first Asian experiment on his own team (Chan Ho Park was there the year before, but pitched 8 innings with an ERA of 7.88 in two years, and didn’t even see serious action until Nomo proved he could be a success in 1995), opened the door for dozens of players. If there is room for a player almost solely because of his “contributions” vs. statistics, Nomo would be my guy.
Alas, I vote for him, as I can only vote for three. Stats wise, obviously, there are a good number of guys more qualified. But there it is.
Very interesting historical argument on Hideo Nomo. I’m not sure the opening-doors case is quite enough to persuade me, but it is a cogent and creative suggestion. Nicely done.
Interesting that Piazza has opened a bit of a lead. I’m not sure I would have predicted him as likely to win this round. I wonder if that bodes well for his Cooperstown chances.
Unfortunately, Mike seems to have the same problem as Bagwell: The writers don’t seem to want to vote for Bonds and Clemens, who not only have witness-based evidence of PED use against them but also seem to be rather unpleasant people. But then the same writers don’t necessarily want to be embarrassed by excluding the greatest PEDs-associated guys while inducting lesser (if nicer) players who might have been users. What a mess. I think the whole concept of the Hall is at risk.
At Bill James Online, they’ve been holding an “alternate” Hall of Fame vote every year since 2009. At the moment, Craig Biggio is opening up a HUGE lead. Bonds and Clemens are at #3 and 4, respectively. But who should be at #2 but Mike Piazza! I’ve been following that for a couple of days, and I made the prediction (in my mind, anyway) that Piazza would be the big winner over here. With no Biggio on this ballot, it’s not really that surprising to me that it’s Piazza. He’s the only player here who really has an argument as the best to ever play his position. And I say this knowing that I didn’t vote for him! But I figure he’ll be the first player inducted. Which is maybe a little weird to think about. I hope he’s honored. 🙂
Actually, unlike Bagwell, Mike Piazza has confessed to PED use (actually, the very same PED, androstenedione, that McGwire was caught on) and has multiple witness confirming: http://www.complex.com/sports/2012/07/the-25-best-alleged-and-confirmed-steroid-users-in-baseball-history/steroids-14
The fact that he’s the leader in these polls is just a disgrace, in my opinion, as I don’t think known ‘roiders should be allowed to be enshrined in the Hall.
As for Bagwell, well, there is no actual evidence against him, just various observations of the similarity between his career and steroiders’ careers. But you know who else had a great start, a long, illustrious career with monstrous numbers, and a sudden collapse in his later years? Hank Aaron (or, if you prefer a clean Steroid Era example, Frank Thomas)
Hank Aaron is the last player that would come to mind when talking about sudden collapses. In his age 35-39 seasons he averaged 41 HR, 101 RBI, .299 BA,.396 OBP, .601 SLG, and 168 OPS+ for 6.9 WAR per 162 games. His 19 year peak is probably the longest and most consistent in history.
Andro (not technically an anabolic steroid, according to Wikipedia) was absolutely and clearly legal, was openly sold and its use was entirely within major league rules at the time Piazza admitted to having tried it (and said he was disappointed by the results). This was also the period during which McGwire had andro in his locker at the very time he was pursuing the home run record, and it was widely understood then that it was completely legal and within baseball rules as then applicable. McGwire after he retired admitted to also using PEDS in a manner that violated baseball rules, but that should not be confused with his use of andro at the time it was unquestionably within the rules. Are we now going to disqualify guys for admitting doing something that was clearly within the rules of the time? That seems to me excessive.
I wasn’t aware of that, although it’s certainly a tricky grey area whether you either allow him in or not.
What I do not understand is how many people refer to Piazza and steroids as an “only whispers”/”innocent until proven guilty” case like Bagwell’s (including a story on steroids and the HOF in USA Today just last week), when in reality he has admitted to it (even if it was allowed at the time).
I think the “whispers” about Piazza are intended to reference his supposed use of PEDs that were illegal and/or banned by baseball at the time he ostensibly used them. I don’t think they are referencing his admitted use of andro when it was considered a perfectly legal over-the-counter “supplement”. I think any opposition to inducting Mike into the Hall would be based on the belief (not supported by anything in the Mitchell Report or other official sources or published witness accounts) that he used PEDs in a context in which it was against baseball laws and/or the law.
I used to be fascinated by all the players born in ’68 who were obviously HOF bound–before PED-usage came to light, anyway. I figure that number has probably been cut by somewhere between a third to a half. In case no one’s mentioned it already, Thomas and Bagwell were both born May 27.
Kent. Big Hurt Piazza
Frank Thomas
John Olerud
Mike Piazza
My votes:
1) Alomar
2) Kent
3) Piazza
Though Thomas and Bagwell may have better stats and reaching milestones (400, 500) Home run clubs but there are too many first baseman in history more worthy. Both Alomar and Kent are two of the best offensive second basemen of all time. As far as Piazza goes everyone knows or at least should know he is the biggest offensive force ever to wear the tools of ignorance. Though many people have been critical of him defensively the teams he played for were almost always ranked in the upper half of the league as far as team ERA goes. Additionally I am FOR allowing suspected or proven PED users in but Sammy Sosa to me is not worthy. He may have the most homeruns of the class of 1968 but all around Kent, Alomar, and Piazza get my vote.
Wins Above Average, excluding negative seasons:
Bagwell 52.0 (he was never below average)
Mussina 49.4
Thomas 40.9
Piazza 40.0
Alomar 37.3
Sosa 35.8 (with lots of negative seasons)
Kent 29.8
I’m tempted to give Piazza extra credit for catching, but he wasn’t a great defensive catcher, so I’m not sure WAR is selling him short. The tools of ignorance certainly reduced his playing time, but he also gets a nice positional adjustment in the figure above. The top three above are my ballot.
That is the nub of the question with respect to Piazza, isn’t it – how much of a positional adjustment for catchers is appropriate, and does WAR really do enough? Adam’s Hall of Stats puts Mike fifth all-time among catchers, ahead of Yogi, Cochrane, Dickey, Hartnett…. The rules and structure of baseball require that you have a catcher and that a catcher come to bat about as many times a game as guys from much less demanding spots. So perhaps a top-5 of all-time catcher ought to go ahead of guys who are not in or close to that rank at their own positions. Bagwell and Thomas are around #7 and #11 in the 1B/DH category (I think I am fairly treating those two positions as one category) in the Hall of Stats.
Isn’t the other issue re: Piazza his defense? We know it was bad but how bad was it? Advanced defensive analysis for catchers is still in its infancy and it may be that he was a lot worse than we thought he was based on the currently available metrics.
Alomar, Bagwell, Mussina
Thomas
Mussina
Bagwell
Alomar, Piazza, Bagwell.
Not that Thomas, Mussina and Sosa are not worthy, but I think those three are the best of the bunch.
Hmmm, it seems like 1968 was a pretty good birth year for baseball players. I’ll have to go with Bagwell, Piazza, and Thomas.
bagwell
thomas
piazza
Alomar,
Thomas,
Bagwell.
Man, I looked at Mussina vs. Glavine heads up…pretty scary stuff.
Mussina K’d more and walked less per 9 than Glavine
His WAR is 1.4 HIGHER that Glavine
WAR7 is only 0.2 less
JAWS has Mussina at +0.6 over Glavine
Moose had 146 FEWER starts yet has one more CG than Glavine
Only had 2 fewer shutouts in those 146 fewer games
Moose would have to go 35-50 to equal Glavin’s W/L totals…
WOW!
Actually, Jeff, Mussina out-WAR’s Glavine by 8.8 wins. I would definitely put Mussina a cut above Glavine. A lot of Glavine’s worth is tied up in his wins totals, both the 5 20-win years and his career 300+ total. He won the Cy Young in two of those years(’91-deserved, ’98-not so much). Mussina was close many times but never won. Hopefully Hall voters will see past that and let Mussina into Cooperstown. I’d say Glavine is a lock, although not necessarily right away.
I have no doubt that Glavine will be inducted into the HOF prior to Mussina, but both belong there, although I do believe Mussina was a better pitcher overall, even if it’s just slightly.
The coming election of Jack Morris should pretty much ensure Mussina’s eventual election.
With 56 ballots in now, Bagwell is creeping up on Piazza — now just three votes behind for the No. 1 spot. Of the last 10 ballots cast, nine have included Bagwell, only four have included Piazza.
Thomas, Bagwell, Mussina.
Piazza is close, yet I do not think positional balance is the question, + we do not know how bad his defense might have been. The Wins Above Average is eye opening, & I assume we give aout enough positional adjustment to catchers. Alomar is close, but not quite enough total value.
If PEDs aere illegal, tested for or not, & often improved performances beyond what could be done naturally, + are considered as part of the character clause for the HOF: of course we should consider them.
The fact that we could make mistakes or vote for users should not mean we ignore considering how good you were without cheating (& lying about it). And stealing roster spots, glory, & or money from clean players. That MLB enabled it is no reason to excuse those who cheat.
I have lifted for years, read much about it, talked to many gym rats, & want to weigh in on some things here.
Though I never liked the pre-cursor/pro-hormones like Andro, no way we can be decent & punish the use of something totally legal at the time.
It is unfair to assume a player is guilty without good direct evidence, or overwhelming indirect evidence. The latter is hard to come by. If Sosa had no report on him from ’03, his combination of massive increase in size, performance, hat size, + cheating through corking would be plenty to rule him almost certainly guilty.
Not so with Baggy or Piazza. Either could well have used. But it is unfair to not honor them because they may well have or have not used, absent good evidence.
Steroids can make you very bulky, others do not but increase strength (like A-Rod took). Results depend upon effectiveness of protocol, training, quirks of genetics, & nutrition.
The trouble is that some guys-& athletes tend to have this more frequently-can add muscle pretty dramatically with the right training & nutrition. And with much money & a long off season, some do this cleanly.
I can get technical with the ranges of how much pure muscle one can get how fast under ideal conditions, but for now if you start untrained, roughly 20-25 lbs. is possible in the 1st year, progressively less thereafter. Less or more if starting from bulky or way underweight/still growing.
And there are outliers. It is a very small %, but I have seen guys whom I trust & have little reason to lie, that have ~ this potential: 6′ 2″, 250 lbs., @ 10% body fat. Part of the weight & reason for so much muscle potnetial is having huge bones.
Someone like Bagwell can have excellent potential, unlike a Bonds who was highly athletic but not so mesomorphic,& gained implausibly after years of lifting. Or he could have cheated, as anyone could have, but I see no good evidence-that he did. Also not so fast a gain that must be drugs.
Not only is there no love for Sheffield, he doesn’t even get a kiss.
Sheff was traded a bazillion times which was a sign of his attitude and unlikeability. Still, the guy could seriously rake. It’s a stacked 5-7 players here…
I didn’t vote for him and wouldn’t, but man, that’s a serious offensive career (no pun intended).
It is indeed interesting that Sheffield hasn’t even appeared once, which means he would drop off the ballot. Adam’s Hall of Stats method rates Sheffield seventh among the 1968 birth-year group, way well below Bagwell, Piazza, Thomas and Mussina, significantly below Alomar, and just below Sosa, but ahead of Kent and Olerud. I don’t think his dropping off the ballot would be any real loss — my guess is it would be unlikely he would ever be inducted here even if he was continuously eligible. But it is interesting that he has yet to get even a single vote. When I first set up the vote-tally spreadsheet for this round, I had a column in a prominent spot for Sheffied on the assumption that he’d be getting a number of votes.
Personally, I remember Sheff indicating he was prepared to play less than full speed in games in protest against not getting a contract extension. If I’m remembering that correctly, then that to me is worse than any PED violation, because it calls into question the whole nature of the game as a real competition in which players are playing as hard as they can to win. PED use, even if illegal, was at least undertaken by players in an effort to do their best on the field. When players or managers engage in behavior that calls into question the primacy for their effort in trying to win games (which gambling on games, taking bribes, and playing half-speed for contract negotiation reasons all do), that to me is worse than any PED use.
Birtelcom,
Specifically, there’s been the persistent rumour that when he was with the Brewers, he deliberately threw the ball away playing third base, in order to get traded.
I agree with you that in my mind this is worse than PED use, as it calls into question whether a player is giving his best effort on the field.
Still, at his best he was an awesome hitter (check out 1996 and 20000. WAR _hates_ his defense, though (his -195 Rfield is the worst ever, right?).
Quick Lawrence what number am I thinking of?
No, Jason, we can’t read your mind, or Sheffield’s. However, if you went around telling people that you were thinking of a certain number — the way Sheff reportedly did in regard to the behavior Lawrence referenced — then it would be perfectly legitimate for us to talk about it.
Here’s an article by the well-known Gordon Edes, from 1993, Sheffield’s second year in San Diego. The key line: “Among those he won over was the Padres’ perennial All-Star, Tony Gwynn, who’d heard all the stories, some of which were true: Like Sheffield’s admission that he deliberately made errors while in Milwaukee to force a trade.”
Notice the word “admission.”
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1993-06-25/sports/9301200599_1_marlins-gary-sheffield-tony-gwynn
Seven lowest career Rfield numbers via the Play Index:
Derek Jeter -231
Gary Sheffield -196
Adam Dunn -152
Bernie Williams -139
Michael Young -130
Manny Ramirez -129
Bobby Bonilla -121
Danny Tartabull -120
Lawrence: this is what Sheffield claimed: “Milwaukee brought out the hate in me. I was a crazy man. . . . I hated everything about the place. If the official scorer gave me an error, I didn’t think was an error, I’d say, ‘OK, here’s a real error”.
But he later retracted the story and an analysis of his errors while with the Brewers doesn’t support the notion that he made them on purpose. You can read more here. Scroll down to the second story.
http://thisdaybaseball.blogspot.com/2005_11_13_archive.html
That being said I think it’s pretty clear that Sheffield was a “me first” sort of player and likely a clubhouse cancer. For example, he accused the Brewers of racism because they made him play 3rd bases while using a white person at short. (as if race was the only factor in their decision).
Ed,
OK, thanks for filling in the details on Sheffield and his time with the Brewers.
I think that article is about as close to the truth as we’re going to get. Still, Shef just has far too much other baggage for this one piece of the puzzle to really change anyone’s perception about him.
As far as Sheffield having zero votes goes, it doesn’t mean he wasn’t at least considered by many. But restricting the vote to only three is going to yield results like this. It’s quite possible if we were able to vote for 10 guys or whatever that Sheffield would end up in the bottom half of the top 10 in voting. But that is not the voting structure that birtelcom used for this process, and I’m not here to condemn it. It’s his baby. I would expect a few very good players to get shut out in the future when there’s a glut of great players in one particular year (either that, or 1968 is just a fluke year with several very good players in it).
knowing that my three selections would get plenty of
votes, I almost included Sheffield to protect him.
I didn’t want to vote that way and quickly dropped the
thought.
As stated before, #561, I have decided to ignore PED in my
evaluations. Not sure if that is the right thing. But since
I already voted for Piazza, I must be consistent.
I too remember Sheffield exhibiting less than stellar character.
Weren’t there stories about him delibarately throwing balls
away in Milwaukee in order to facilitate a trade??
I’m not a Bagwell hater by any stretch(I like the guy as a person and player) but hearing that he’s creeping up on Piazza for the #1 spot is alarming to me.
First off, Frank Thomas is a better hitter than both of them.
Secondly, has anyone looked at Bags/Piazza’s home road splits? Piazza played his entire career in notorious pitchers parks, Bagwell only about half his career. Add in Piazza played Catcher, not first base and they have pretty similar stats overall I can’t see why Bags is getting more favor. Personal likeness maybe? Just my thoughts…
Jeff, I suspect that people are rating Bagwell ahead of Thomas because he was almost as good at hitting and far, far better in defense and baserunning.
Re: Piazza, it is wrong to call Shea Stadium during his time a “notorious pitcher’s park.” During Piazza’s Mets career, Shea’s batting park factors were 100 (neutral), 97, 96, 95, 96, 99, 97, and 100. That’s an average of 97.5. Piazza’s career OPS in Shea was .899; his overall OPS during his 8 Mets years was .910. Not a big deal there.
I was going for the 5 years Bagwell had in the juice box built in Houston vs. Piazza never playing a home game in his career anywhere but a favorable pitchers park. I agree, Bagwell could run miles around Thomas but only because Thomas was 6 inches taller and 60+lbs heavier. Defensively Bagwell wasn’t the best out there but he was above average for sure. I guess the many years at DH hurt The Big Hurt.
For what it’s worth, ESPN just released their Hall of 100 (+ 25 honorable mentions). The panel of 30+ experts were asked to only vote based on on-the-field accomplishments and ignore off-the-field stuff, including PEDs. Rankings of players from our current ballot are as follows:
#68 – Bagwell
#69 – Thomas
#73 – Alomar
#78 – Piazza
#95 – Sosa
Neither Mussina (nor Sheffield) made the top 125.
I think Mussina is punished by the media because he never won a Cy Young or 20 games several times(the sexy stats so to speak). He clearly was Tom Glavine’s equal if not slightly better and we hold Glavine as a top 10 lefty ever.
As far as Thomas, he’s still a better pure all around hitter than Piazza, Bags or Alomar, it’s his many years at DH that hurt him. Thomas from 1990-99 was an unstoppable machine ala Pujols last decade.
It is worse to throw games or throw away balls or otherwise not try than cheat & improve performance. Though a threat to do so is different than the action. And while it is much worse per individual game doing so or “under the influence”, we must consider who often a player did these things, 7 how much it effected results. A guy who twice dogged it & lost hits or threw away balls is not as bad as someone who used PEDs for a year, thus gaining size & improving performance. That man had far more impact on the game, cheated, & reaped benefits he did not deserve, deprived other players of success in a zero sum game (pitchers, opposing teams, maybe grabbed a roster spot…)
And likely lied about it all.
Piazza, Mussina, Bagwell
Thanks for the fun project! I realize that it’s WELL beyond the voting deadline for this round. But I just found out about this project and wanted to start from the beginning, see who I WOULD have voted for, and see how the project goes. I’m making my selections without looking at who others picked, who was actually elected, etc. Eventually I’ll catch up to the current votes and will participate as normal.
Anyway, I examined the 1968 candidates and would vote for:
–Bagwell
–Thomas
–Piazza
Other candidates were good too, but I consider these guys all in the Top 10 at their positions.
Other top candidates I considered highly:
–Mussina
–Alomar
–Kent
–Sosa (although not THAT highly)
Player I was very happy not to vote for:
–Sheffield (I’m a lifelong Brewers fan and years later we really don’t like him.)
Sentimental favorites, but I didn’t consider at all:
–Nomo (He spent a not-great year on the Brewers)
–Quantrill (I’m an alumni of University of Wisconsin and he was the last remaining alum in the majors.)
Haha! I love it that you’re starting from the start. I won’t give any specific spoilers, but it looks like you’ve got some pretty solid picks. Welcome aboard!