The 2013 Hall of Fame Class: [null]


No use for the podium this year. (Photo via WLWT Cincinnati)

The greatest hitter and the greatest pitcher many of us will ever see were on the ballot, but that didn’t matter. The BBWAA elected a total of zero players to Hall of Fame this year, the first time that’s happened since 1996. Craig Biggio led the voting with 68.2%, but players must receive 75% for enshrinement. Tim Raines (52.2%), Roger Clemens (37.6%), Don Mattingly (13.2%), Bernie Williams (3.3%), Kenny Lofton (3.2%), David Wells (0.9%), Mike Stanton (0%), and Rondell White (0%) represent the crop of former Yankees on the ballot. Players receiving less than 5% of the vote drop off the ballot next year. Full voting results are available at the BBWAA’s official site.

Given the overwhelmingly deep ballot, it’s pretty ridiculous no players will be inducted this year. Beyond Barry Bonds and Clemens you have absolute no-brainers like Mike Piazza (greatest hitting catcher of all-time!), Craig Biggio, and Jeff Bagwell. I count no fewer than 15 players on the ballot who, at the very least, deserve serious consideration for the Hall. My personal and mythical ballot, seen on Twitter and included in this YES Network feature, was ten players deep. It would have been a dozen had the ballots not been capped at ten. Never really got that rule.

More than anything, this year’s lack of inductees confirms the voting has become more about the writers than the players. The Hall of Fame is a museum and an archive of the game first and foremost. We can’t exclude the parts people don’t like just because. There’s zero evidence (zero!) guys like Bonds, Clemens, and Piazza used PEDs. No failed drug tests, nothing. Suspicion does not equal guilt, yet the ballot this year shows the BBWAA is treating these players as guilty until proven innocent. How someone would go about proving they didn’t use something, a PED or otherwise, is beyond me. Nevermind that the burden of proof falls on those making the accusations.

Anyway, the already overcrowded ballot will get even more crowded next winter when players like Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Frank Thomas, and former Yankee Mike Mussina will be Hall of Fame eligible for the first time. If they don’t change the rule and allow writers to vote for more than ten players in a given year, the voting process is going to be a cluttered nightmare in the coming years. For now, we get an empty 2013 class and a nine-month reprieve until the next ballot is announced and the same inane arguments begin again.

Categories : Days of Yore


  1. Drew says:

    This is an absolute embarrassment and a sad day for baseball.

    Also how did Curt Schilling get more votes than Clemens AND Bonds? This isn’t even my Yankee bias, but Curt Schilling is not a HOF.

    • Pat D says:

      Yea, he is. Postseason performance puts him over the top.

      And I fucking hate the guy.

      • Drew says:

        Never won a CY Young and I know that wins are not the end all stat but he only won 216 compared to Tommy John who won 288 and he only won 20 games 3 times and had 20 shutouts in his career. Compare it to another Hall snuff like Jim Kaat and who had 31 shutouts and 283 Wins. Again Wins is not the end all stat, but Schillings numbers lack. WAR also isn’t the best stat to measure a pitchers performance. Also IMO postseason performance is nice but there I don’t think it should vault someone into the HOF.

        • WhittakerWalt says:

          3116 strikeouts and a brilliant postseason performer. Plus, as much as it pains me to say, he backed up all of his trash-talk.

          • Nice postseason for Schill, that’s his strongest argument, that and his Ks to BBs ratio.

            Personally despite his bluster about ‘roids I believe he was a juicer…for all the bloody sock lore people overlook what that fascia plantar injury is often indicative is…PEDs. I believe that’s the unreported story on that heroic tale.

            Schill…not a HOF

        • Pat D says:

          You really can’t compare his wins and shutout totals to guys like Kaat and John, either, because the eras were quite different. Guys like Kaat and John were expected to complete games, Schilling not as much.

          Schilling had a 127 ERA+, was Cy Young runner-up 3 times, finished 4th another time, went to 6 AS Games, and also finished in the top 14 of MVP voting 4 times.

          By comparison, Jim Kaat had a 108 ERA+, only went to 3 AS Games, only got Cy Young votes one time and finished 4th, and received MVP votes 3 times, once finishing 5th (yet he didn’t get any Cy Young votes that year, probably because of the difference in voting then).

          Tommy John had a 111 ERA+, went to 4 AS Games, was a 2-time Cy Young runner up and finished 4th and 8th in other years, and only twice got MVP votes, with his best finish being 12th.

          Oh, and John and Kaat only won 20 games 3 times each as well.

      • OldYanksFan says:

        Shrill has a career ERA+/WHIP of 127 and 1.137. Now that’s good, but is it really GREAT? I don’t think really good players, or even excellent players should be in the HOF. It is for GREAT players (at their position).

        • Pat D says:

          There are 57 starting pitchers in the HOF. 17 of them have better ERA+ numbers. 15 of them have better WHIP numbers. So that puts him in the top third of HOF pitchers in those categories. I’d say that’s great.

    • JobaWockeeZ says:

      He has the 5th best pitcher WAR.

      • JobaWockeeZ says:

        However it is a joke he got more votes than Bonds and Clemens but they love them Red Sox. And I guess winning 2 rings with the Yankees takes out Clemens Red Sox status too.

        • Preston says:

          I also don’t get why he gets a pass on PED’s, being little or fat seems to get you past the sniff test while Bagwell and Piazza are punished without proof. Players of all shapes and sizes have been caught using PED’s, yet we continue to pretend that all PED users have to look like Mcgwire.

          • thenamestsam says:

            Yeah, you would think that this notion would have been debunked based on the people who have tested positive the last few years. I mean is Biggio’s body type that different from Melky where he should completely avoid suspicion while Bagwell and Piazza are tarred and feathered?

            • Ed says:

              I think Biggio not making it in is a sign that he hasn’t completely avoided suspicion.

              • Jim Is Bored says:

                I think it’s more of a sign that there are a lot of writers who won’t vote anyone in if they played in that era.

                • Preston says:

                  I think there are several other writers who are trying to vote for people in order to keep them on the ballot so when the moral indignation dies down they get in. Biggio probably didn’t receive votes because those voters didn’t think they needed to vote for him.

              • A.D. says:

                I think its that some writers don’t consider him a 1st ballot hall of famer, given outside of 3K hits we probably wouldn’t be talking about him

                • WhittakerWalt says:

                  1844 runs scored, 291 homers, 668 doubles, 414 SBs, primarily as a 2b/Catcher (two non-hitting positions). Are you kidding?
                  Sure he hung on a little too long to get 3000 hits, but Biggio was an elite player for most of his career.

              • commerce says:

                I don’t–listening/reading comments by many who have a ballot never put Biggio in that group of suspected PEDs users. Most thought he would make it either this year or next–feeling was that he wasn’t “dominant” and doesn’t deserve recognition the first time eligible. Tho not a written rule, lots of writers withhold their vote from the great/very good on the first ballot, reserving their nod for only the ultra-great.

        • commerce says:

          Might stay on point–use/connection to PEDs explains why Bonds and Clemens ranked below so many other player who were not in the same league (as performers). Nothing else influenced the rankings like PEDs.

      • JobaWockeeZ says:

        5th best WAR since 1980 you fucking moron.

    • It’s sad that MLB and the MLBPA dumped this on the writers’ lap to sort out. It’s their mess, the writers are trying to do the right thing, I think they’re wait and see…see what turns up in the next few years, what else do we know? nobody’s entitled to 1st ballot, especially guys with blemishes on the baseball career and the guys people are screaming about all have blemishes.

  2. I am not the droids you're looking for... says:

    Has no GPA

  3. gc says:

    So Bonds and Clemens each got over 200 votes. I’d be really interested in seeing how many votes they get NEXT year when some of the writers will have finished “making their statement.” Regardless, I think both will eventually get in. (and deservedly so, IMO)

    • commerce says:

      gc may be right–I hope not! Bonds and his ilk were showered w/ money, awards, and celebrity. That’s enough! They ought not be honored once more–they can find solace in their fame, bank accounts, and trophy cases.

  4. Pat D says:

    This slightly altered quote from Woody Allen’s Bananas sums it up:

    This election is a travesty. It’s a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.

    • Evan3457 says:

      I agree. This is a disgraceful performance by the BBWAA. Even granting them the Bonds and Clemens cases, Biggio, Bagwell, and Piazza are no-brainer Hall of Famers. To deny them based on “suspicion” or even partly on “suspicion” is a gross abuse of their voting powers.

      In my opinion.

  5. Get Phelps Up says:

    I think the voting should be done by the players in the Hall, not these dumbass writers.

    At least Jack Morris didn’t make it.

  6. I am not the droids you're looking for... says:

    Btw Mike I would take issue with the statement that there is “zero” evidence. I get your point about where the burden lies, innocent until guilty etcetcetc but “zero” is an absolute and I think defies reality when applied to this situation. There is simply not “zero” evidence.

    • I am not the droids you're looking for... says:

      Sorry hit Send too soon. What I meant to add is that there is not zero evidence. There is simply not enough evidence to conclusively prove use.

      • TCMiller30 says:

        They have allegations.

        Not evidence.

        • Need Pitching & Hitting says:

          Don’t witness statements generally get accepted as evidence in court?
          Not absolute proof, but surely evidence to consider.

        • WhittakerWalt says:

          Eyewitness testimony is pretty damning, IMHO.

        • commerce says:

          Does Barry’s revelation in front of a Grand Jury that he used a “cream” that was tainted constitute evidence?

        • I am not the droids you're looking for... says:

          What planet have you been on? Far more than allegations. Here is one example: Bonds body and head changed dramatically, and his performance took a massive step function higher (from great to insane) at an age when people normally do the exact opposite. Again, this doesn’t prove anything, but it is evidence.

    • Jim Is Bored says:

      I was going to say the same thing, but instead I’ll just agree with you.

      There isn’t enough evidence to be sure of anything, but there is absolutely “evidence” in specifically Bonds’ case.

      • Evan in NYC says:

        You’re right, there was never any conclusive evidence vs Bonds – however there was:

        1. A calendar in Greg Anderson’s home with a steroid schedule labeled ‘Barry’
        2. An invoice for blood tests for $450 labeled ‘Barry’
        3. Bonds testimony that he gave Greg Anderson $20,000 and a ring the season in which he hit 73 home runs
        4. “The Clear” and “The Cream”, which was applied without question when received from Anderson?
        5. ‘Muscle and Fitness’ writes an article in conjunction with Bonds on the new workout regiment proscribed by BALCO during the summer of 2000. In 2003, when asked about BALCO, Barry says “Who?”
        6. Anderson admits to the Grand Jury that he gave steroids to several baseball players
        7. Victor Conte (founder of BALCO) says he gave steroids to professional athletes, names Bonds.
        8. Anderson admits to Grand Jury that he would be tipped off two-weeks prior to any PED testing done to Bonds

        And so on, and so forth. At some point he may not have come out and said “Okay, you got me, I took steroids”, but of all the fans who are avid baseball watchers – you can’t say that 99% of them won’t find him guilty in the court of public opinion.

        That being said, I think they should get into the HoF. We have womanizers, racists, alcoholics and gamblers in there. Why not steroid users as well. This is a dark time in the history of baseball, and it should be noted, but I still believe they deserve to be in there.

        • commerce says:

          Evan, how about gamblers? Maybe there should be no accounting for screwing w/ the integrity of the game…is that it?

        • Jim Is Bored says:

          What? I said that there WAS evidence in Bonds case.

          I guess I wasn’t clear; I meant that there isn’t enough evidence to be sure of anything regarding most of the examples.

          With Bonds I agree with you.

    • Ted Nelson says:

      Agreed, and this isn’t a court of law. It’s a museum. The stakes are not prison here. If things change, they’ll get in.

      Mike is hysterical on this issue, as are others. I have been yelled at for hours by Mike and others who believe PEDs do not help athletes. Been told over and over that there’s no evidence of a link between steroids and strength. It’s like a cult.

      • Jim Is Bored says:

        I don’t think anyone honestly believes PED’s don’t help athletes. The question is how they help, and to that discussion, I haven’t seen real evidence on either side.

        • Evan in NYC says:

          My question is, if they didn’t help them – then why would they take them. Look at Melky Cabrera. He was border line out of baseball, and started taking steroids and put up an MVP caliber season (until he was caught). His only repercussion was not being a 4th OF on some team, but rather signing a 2 year contract for $16M with the Blue Jays. He obviously saw the need to take steroids and cashed in on it. Cashman has publicly noted, that they never saw that type of production out of a player like Melky – and my guess is you never will again. But clearly steroids did something for him, and he took it to the bank.

          To say that steroids don’t help athletes at all is just silly. There are all types of steroids. Some for strength, some for recovery, some to increase red blood cells that bring oxygen to your muscles for longer endurance (Lance Armstrong). Each one of these allows the user to gain an advantage they normally wouldn’t have. Maybe taking steroids in baseball makes you a little bit stronger, and that 385 foot fly ball is now a 405 foot HR. I don’t know, but to say they don’t help is false.

        • commerce says:

          Discuss that Q w/ Lance Armstrong–7 straight Tour de France wins. Dopers dope because they get a competitive edge–don’t u think?

      • LK says:

        I think the skepticism is (or at least should be) far more nuanced than that. Say I accept that steroids make you a better baseball player. There are still a million questions that we really don’t have any answer to: how much better? Do some players benefit more than others?

        And (most importantly from my perspective) what if the opponent is on steroids as well? If you tell me a batter on steroids hit a home run off a pitcher on steroids, how impressive is that? I know that it’s more impressive than a batter on steroids hitting a home run off a clean pitcher. I know it’s less impressive than a clean batter hitting a home run off a pitcher on steroids. But is it more or less impressive than a clean batter hitting a home run off a clean pitcher? I simply don’t think we have nearly enough information to provide any meaningful answer to that question. Bonds gained some homers by taking steroids, but what about all the homers he lost before he started using because he was facing pitchers on steroids?

        At the end of the day, I think there’s too much uncertainty here to try to parse these things out – who used, when, how much, what was the effect, etc. So, we can have a witch hunt where we exclude guys who have no evidence linking them to PEDs as well as keep players who would clearly have been HOF caliber with or without them out of the HOF, or we can admit how limited our knowledge is and vote players in based on the only thing we can be sure of – the merits of their on-field performance.

      • Mike Axisa says:

        Been told over and over that there’s no evidence of a link between steroids and strength.

        Not my me you haven’t. I’ve told you there’s nothing defining how much PEDs actually help players at baseball.

        • WhittakerWalt says:

          Nothing definitive, to be sure. It’s difficult to get scientific studies done on the effects of illegal drugs on the world’s greatest athletes.
          But 40-year old Barry Bonds played better than 29-year old Barry Bonds, and that seems medically and physically impossible… unless the PEDs gave him a big helping hand.

  7. DERP says:

    David Wells only got five votes even though he was better than Morris. Just really sad.

    It is also unfortunate that there are only about 100 public ballots. I really want to know who voted for Aaron Sele.

    • Get Phelps Up says:

      99% of Morris’ case is one game. One game.

      • In fairness, he was also stellar in the 1984 World Series.

        But those World Series games are why people think of him the way they do. His overall numbers are no-where near deserving.

        • Douglas John Bowen says:

          Interesting point here vis a vis World Series games. Not that I’m sweating such an influence on what (I hope) is a future sure lock for the HOF by someone who I consider “the greatest pitcher many of us will ever see,” and it isn’t Mr. Clemens. I’m sure Mr. Axisa’s unspoken assertion was for greatest starting pitcher in a lifetime, which is not being challenged here. But I’ve watched MLB for a half-century now, learning as I go, and I have seen a better, a more important, pitcher, awards or no awards: The Great Rivera.

      • toad says:

        True maybe. OTOH, it is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Numbers.

  8. Nuke Guy (Knoxvillain) says:

    More proof that the HOF is just a fucking joke. I still can’t believe that Tim Raines isn’t in yet. It’s not his fault he played with Rickey Henderson.

    • Herby says:

      Tim should’ve been inducted. I was really hoping this was going to be the year for him.

      • thenamestsam says:

        Still a positive year for him overall I think. He crossed the 50% barrier, and historically that’s basically a sure sign that you’ll eventually be inducted. He’s going to have to sweat it out, especially since the ballot is getting so crowded, but I think he’s pretty likely to get there eventually.

  9. DERP says:

    Also don’t understand how Clemens and Bonds didn’t get the same amount of votes.

  10. Kevin Ocala, Fl says:

    There was zero “evidence” for black holes for years, even though scientists could infer what was happening with other objects around them. Same with the PED Boys. The evidence is in the numbers. To believe that suddenly players are getting better after 35 is ludicrous. And in the case of Bonds, Clemens, and others consider this. How can an athlete train like a body builder and a long distance runner and still have the energy to play baseball. Anyone that’s spent any serious time in the gym, or has done serious road work knows exactly what I’m talking about. PEDs enable athletes to train, and recover fast enough to play their sports. So back to the black hole analogy, we can infer from the stats and the amount of training these guys did, while playing their sports, that they were PED cheats. Really isn’t very hard to “prove”.

    • thenamestsam says:


      Long story short, home runs were way up not because there were more home runs per ball in play (there were actually fewer), but because there were fewer strike outs, meaning more balls in play, meaning more home runs.

      How do you explain that?

      • Herby says:

        So the steroid era never happened?

        • thenamestsam says:

          Of course it happened. However, the reality is that nobody has a clear idea of exactly what the impact of steroids was. People like Kevin above and a lot of the writers want to act like steroids were the sole and proximate cause of the offensive boost we saw at the time. There’s just no way to be sure of that.

          Was it steroids? Were the balls juiced? Was it smaller ballparks? Was it just a bad era for pitching? A combination of all of these? I’m not sure. How can you be?

          • Herby says:

            and the reason why it’s all gone down since testing has been implemented? Even talking with some of the players who’ve used them will tell you that there was a improvement. Search out some of the comments from players. It’s kind of funny how everyone bitches and moans about these players not getting in because of how great their offensive performance was, but what about the pitchers who don’t get in because they’re ERA or other pitching stats are now subpar because they were facing these players and are now missing the cut. I don’t hear any wailing and moaning over these guys.

            • Jim Is Bored says:

              Pitchers were juicing too, according to most players/insiders.

            • thenamestsam says:

              The reality is that the game has always moved in cycles. There have been big offensive eras and big pitching eras before. What were the explanation for those? Maybe it was steroids. Maybe they unjuiced the balls. Maybe the pitchers got better. Or the hitters got worse. Or maybe it’s just a random cycle. My points is that you’re pretending that something complicated is something simple.

              First person testimonials are a truly horrible way to tell whether a drug is having its intended effect. The placebo effect is a real thing.

              On your final point, A. You know more hitters than pitchers were using because…? B. Almost everyone looking at the numbers is adjusting for era. So the fact that pitchers were playing in an offensive era won’t hurt them.

              • Ted Nelson says:

                It is probably not the whole story, but to deny that PEDs enhance athletic performance goes against reason. It doesn’t have to be all or nothing.

                • thenamestsam says:

                  Even you Ted, could not possibly read what I wrote and conclude that I think it’s all or nothing. Did they have some effect? Probably. I’m just arguing against the mindset that we can take 100% of the increased offense and homeruns we saw in the late 90s and early 2000s and attribute it directly to steroids. We just don’t know that.

                • Andy Pettitte's Fibula (formerly Manny's BanWagon) says:

                  I agree with you 100% Ted.

                  People constantly point to the fact that there is no “evidence” that PEDs enhance performance therefore they erroneously conclude that PEDs don’t enhance performance.

                  There will NEVER be evidence that PEDs do or don’t enhance performance because it’s unethical to design a randomized double blinded study to test that hypothesis.

                  While it’s irrational to believe that PEDs are the whole reason some of these guys like Bonds excelled, it’s certainly reasonable to conclude that they do “enhance” performance to some degree as you have inferred.

            • Preston says:

              There is a strong argument that the ban of amphetamines has effected offense vs. pitching a lot more than steroids. Pitchers also used PED’s so I never understood why the argument was just that PED’s produced HR’s. But Greenies help hitters who have a much more mentally strenuous season far more than pitchers. A pitcher has to have energy and concentration once every five days. A hitter has to play 162, tired unfocused hitters vs. fresh pitchers has led to a more pitcher friendly environment.

              • Jim Is Bored says:

                This too

              • Ted Nelson says:

                We’re not supposed to assume PEDs helped hitters, but we should assume that they helped Ps and hitters equally?

                • Jim Is Bored says:

                  Preston didn’t say that they helped Ps and hitters equally. Just that they helped both, and that only using HR’s as steroid evidence is incomplete.

                  • Ted Nelson says:

                    Right, your speculation is superior to other people’s.

                    • Jim Is Bored says:

                      What? That’s a serious what, not an insulting what, because I’m honestly curious where you think I said anything resembling that?

                    • thenamestsam says:

                      Wait so the guy who complained that “I have been yelled at for hours by Mike and others who believe PEDs do not help athletes.” doesn’t think it’s more logical to assume that steroids help both pitchers and hitters? Are pitchers not athletes?

                    • Jim Is Bored says:

                      Because I’m giving you that PED’s help athletes.

                      I think they help both pitchers and hitters. I have no idea how they help either of them, and the only assumption preston made seems like one you’d agree with, that pitchers are helped by PED’s too.

                      You’re free to speculate however you want to.

              • Preston says:

                I have no idea how that effected baseball during that area. And people who are a lot smarter than me have no idea. However I think that even if the data shows some change we have to remember that the amphetamines ban is also something that happened. It was equally pervasive and players equally swear to it’s merits in helping their concentration. I was just throwing out an idea. It wasn’t meant to be taken as anything other than a suggested hypothesis.

            • Ed says:

              The decline in hitting became much sharper after we had PitchFX installed in all stadiums. Perhaps the umpires changed how they call strikes out of fear that PitchFX would make them look bad or get fired. The typical strike zone now might favor pitchers more than the typical pre-PitchFX strike zone.

              • Jim Is Bored says:

                I don’t know that this is true, but it’s a very good example of the fact that it’s a big picture, and there could be any number of explanations.

              • Need Pitching & Hitting says:

                I would think the opposite would be true. It seems like pre-QuesTec, many umpires had huge, pitcher-friendly strike zones, and QuesTec evaluations forced those umpires to adhere more closely to the real strike zone, which should benefit hitters more now.

        • Jim Is Bored says:

          The “Steroid era” happened. The question is what actual, visible, tangible effects the use of any PED’s had. As far as I can tell, that’s never been conclusively decided.

          • Jim Is Bored says:

            Beaten to the punch.

          • thenamestsam says:

            The reason it has never been conclusively decided, and never will be, is that there just isn’t the data to study it. With speculation and guesses as our only source of information on who was using and when there just isn’t any way to gather the data to study what impact steroids had.

            • Jim Is Bored says:

              Sure, makes sense.

              Just bothers me that the writers have taken the burden of being the moral arbiters upon themselves in this whole mess.

            • Ted Nelson says:

              Exactly, it never will be. You’d have to resort to Nazi-like human tests to satisfy the burden of proof you and others seem to be imposing.

              • Jim Is Bored says:

                What burden of proof are we looking for? There’s always the reserve judgment option, which is the one I’ve taken, and seems to be the one thenamestam is taking too.

                • thenamestsam says:

                  Yeah, what? Even by Ted standards this is a weird argument. I’m specifically arguing against taking a definitive stand one way or the other. We just don’t know how much steroids helped one way or the other.

                  • Ted Nelson says:

                    You are looking for proof that will never exist instead of just analyzing the mountain of available evidence in a reasonable way.

                    • Jim Is Bored says:

                      I haven’t seen a mountain of evidence either way. What are we even talking about anymore?

                      What evidence is there that Craig Biggio did steroids? Bacne is the best they’ve got against Piazza.

                      I believe Bonds did steroids, I believe McGwire did steroids, I believe Clemens did steroids. What I don’t know, is what the steroids did for their performance, what they would have done without the steroids, and whether we should throw a blanket “No entry” policy over anyone who ever did them.

                      And with that, my work day is over, so I’m no longer bored, and I don’t want to get involved in any more of a long, drawn out Ted battle, so peace.

                    • thenamestsam says:

                      Instead of just taking shots at everyone else why don’t you put your opinion out there. What mountain of evidence do you see, what are your conclusions based on that, and how would you vote for the Hall of Fame based on those conclusions?

                    • Mike Axisa says:

                      The evidence will never exist so we should just take everyone’s word for it? Ooooookay.

                    • Preston says:

                      The fact that nobody will ever know for certain is exactly why the issue is moot. Players will always be judged by the era they were in and many eras have been radically different for various reasons. To punish a known steroid user is silly because we know that their are more out their who we don’t know, to punish a suspected steroid user seems to go against any sense of justice that I have, and to keep out any player from the era seems childish. So just let all the deserving players in and put them in the context of the era they played in.

                    • I am not the droids you're looking for... says:

                      Hey Axisa that’s a crap comment and you know it. Ted said the PROOF will never exist. And it’s because, as has been commented on above, it would take a massive, thorough, double blind, extensive experiment to get to “proof.” however, to ignore the EVIDNCE is simply preposterous.

      • I am not the droids you're looking for... says:

        Steroids improve vision? Meaning fewer swings and misses, more balls in play, including more home runs, even if at a diminished rate.

    • commerce says:


  11. Brooklyn Ed says:

    Yep; this year’s HOF is a total joke! Craig Biggio got robbed. Why the writes forget he has the 2nd most HBP?? Only 3(!!!!) away from the most.

  12. TCMiller30 says:

    If those guys really are innocent, this whole situation really sucks for them. I don’t believe they are, and although I think their performances should get them in, I’m not really upset that they’re being punished for cheating. It’d be nicer if they had actually been proven guilty though.

    On a side note, Bonds, Clemens and Piazza aren’t overly likeable guys. I wonder how a guy like Jeter (A sure fire hall of famer) would do if he were eligible and associated with steroids. He is way more likeable than those three.

    • Laz says:

      Sure they aren’t likeable, but Bonds is one of the top 5 hitters of all time. How many players have averaged a .600 OBP over a whole season? That is absolutely insane.

      Sure make a whole steroids era section, but no doubt Bonds should be in the Hall, and this vote is a joke.

      • TCMiller30 says:

        I agree 100%. I’m just wondering if it’d be any different if they were likeable guys.. Do Chipper, Jeter, Griffey etc get in while Bonds, Clemens, Sosa don’t if they were all accused to some level of using steroids?

      • KeithK says:

        Reaching base 60% of the time is an amazing achievement. But Bonds had a .600 OBP in the year he turned 40 because he was intentionally walked 120 times. He was intentionally walked so many times because of the dramatic changes in his game that occurred in his late 30′s. For many of us it seems pretty obvious that this change was chemical and thus not worth honoring.

  13. Score another one for the High Holiness of the BBWAA.

  14. thenamestsam says:

    Worst part for me is that all of the fucking phony writers like to call themselves reporters and yet, when push comes to shove they’re perfectly willing to rely entirely on rumor and innuendo to make their decisions. With Piazza and Bagwell there isn’t a shred of evidence. If you’re a reporter, go fucking report on the story and find some damn evidence that these guys used steroids. It’s the complete opposite of everything that journalism is supposed to be about.

    • WhittakerWalt says:

      They have big muscles. That’s enough for the BBWAA. Doesn’t matter how they actually got the muscles. Being built, just on its own, is conclusive enough for them.

  15. JAG says:

    Absurd and actually surprising. How do Biggio and Piazza not get in? I can understand (if totally disagree) with Clemens and Bonds due to the strong suspicions and allegations surrounding them (despite no proof), but Piazza doesn’t have much suspicion on him and as far as I recall Biggio has absolutely none.

    The writers absolutely need to be accountable for stuff like this. The 5 blank ballots need to be publicly defended by their voters or their votes should be revoked.

    • mac says:

      Do you remember when Piazza came back from the groin tear? He looked like he lost 40 pounds of muscle, he attributed it to doing Yoga. Regardless, the writers were embarassed by the players when the steroid scandal really broke out, I think most of them were too naive to realize that many if not most of these guys were juicing – they (the writers) are petty and are paying them back.

      Here’s a little hearsay on Piazza:


    • WhittakerWalt says:

      A lot of people here seem to believe that unless you recorded someone doing PEDs with your iPhone, they must not have done them. Anything other than video evidence = no proof.
      It’s a wonder anyone ever gets convicted of a crime in this country, what with all this “no proof” going around.
      Read Game of Shadows if you still think there’s “no proof.”

  16. jjyank says:

    So lame.

    That is all.

    • Cris Pengiucci says:

      Agree. Some of these guys were, far and away, the best of their era. For that reason alone, they should get in. It’s just way to hard to judge how they’d perform in a different era (or if they hadn’t used PEDs, for the ones that you believe used them). Judge them based on what they did against the relevant competition.

  17. Bubba says:

    It’s pathetic that the people who are tasked with covering the sport were either clueless or willfully ignorant with respect to PEDs but now have no issue climbing on their high horse for “the good of the game.” Eff ‘em all.

  18. Gonzo says:

    So glad this is over with, at least for a little while. I’ve become apathetic towards the HOF and the BBWAA.

  19. V says:

    Wrap up the BBWAA. It’s useless. Boycott its members until people resign their membership. Boycott the HOF in Cooperstown until they remove the BBWAA from the selection process.

  20. Preston says:

    If the HOF continue this gridlock the people of Cooperstown should sue the BBWAA for lost earnings. That town will lose a lot of business without any induction ceremonies.

  21. JLC 776 says:

    My favorite stat – 214 votes for Clemens, 206 for Bonds.

    So there were 8 guys who said ‘Yes’ to PEDs but ‘No’ to Bonds.

    I maintain that the narcissism of a decent portion of the BBWA is mind boggling. They are the Comic Book Guys of the sports world.

    • Gonzo says:

      They are the Comic Book Guys of the sports world.

      You are my new hero.

    • TCMiller30 says:

      That really is incredible. I guess the fact that Bonds broke one of the holiest of the holy records means his steroids were better than the ones Clemens used.

  22. Kiko Jones says:

    My contempt for the Baseball Writers Association of America has been brewing for a while now. But contempt requires at least a modicum of respect. No more.

    • Bobby two knives says:

      BBW are no different than the rest of the media these days – they think they know more and are more important and that their opinions have more validity than anyone else. They are the elite; the rest of the world – NOT! Oh, and please don’t point out their hypocrisy.

  23. Robinson Tilapia says:

    I heard Ronnie Mustellier even requested his wing be removed

    In all seriousness, what a crock of shit.

  24. mac says:

    I realize its fun to damn an entire group of people with a few key strokes (I did too above) but in the case of Biggio and Piazza, over 1/2 of the BBW’s voted for induction. Some guys no doubt are total knobs, but in general, they are just sending a message, many of the steroid era guys will get their plaques, maybe starting next year.

    Wonder what Selig and Co. thinks of this?

    • Havok9120 says:

      Yeah, I’ll be interested to see how the vote tallies change next year after the “message” has been sent. I doubt most, if any, of them will get in, but they’ll all suddenly have quite a few more votes methinks.

  25. Kiko Jones says:

    Here’s the fun part: with no living, breathing inductees—a former player, owner and ump, all deceased, are the only ones to be inducted—who’s gonna turn up in Cooperstown or even watch on TV?

    So, they’re going to re-honor Lou Gehrig and Rogers Hornsby and a host of others under some pretext.


  26. King of Fruitless Hypotheticals says:

    I totally endorse the idea of calling them BBW’s.

    Later, I’ll reject that as juvenile, insulting, disgusting, inhumane, and unwarranted.

  27. nsalem says:

    5 new teams in the last 20 years meaning there were 60 MLB pitching slots that didn’t exist pre 1992 mayalso be part of the reason for the Home Run spike in this era.

    • Mike HC says:

      Good point. The available player pool has also steadily grown though.

      • Havok9120 says:

        Has it though? Baseball was, quite easily, the most popular sport in the country for most of the last century. I’m not sure that blitzing the color line makes up for the massive population of guys who never consider baseball because of football and, to a lesser extent, basketball.

        • Mike HC says:

          Good points. I was thinking more internationally though like Asia and the explosion of baseball factories in central america.

    • mac says:

      Yep, and smaller parks, livelier ball, but lets face it, Maris record stood for almost 40 years with few even coming close. Last year’s HR leaders, Miggy with 44 and tainted Braun with 41.

      None of these guys got caught on national tv with a needle in their arm, its impossible to get incontrovertable evidence of PED usage, but lets face it, some players and the powers that be in MLB made a mockery of the game.

  28. Joe says:

    If this is how the writers feel about PED then this is more proof way a guy like Mike Mussina and David Wells should get into the Hall. They had to face all those PED users in the AL east all of there careers. Just look at all of the middle of the road SP that went from the AL to the NL and became great SP. I would have loved for a guy like Maddux to have come to NY and see how he would have done in the AL east all his career. Also how about a guy like Byrne Williams had to face SP who used PED and still had some great years.

  29. Mike HC says:

    The Baseball Hall of Fame will eventually become irrelevant if they keep this up. I think these guys will eventually get in.

  30. Ted Nelson says:

    Let everyone in the Hall of Fame! Stop this oppression. Randy Velarde is getting robbed!

    • thenamestsam says:

      Ladies and Gentleman,

      I present to you the same Ted Nelson who throws a full on fit every time he catches wind of a strawman argument.

    • Jim Is Bored says:

      This seems like an imposter.

      Or just really out of character.

    • Hoss says:

      Outstanding idea. Mario Mendoza has been waiting years for vindication.

    • Get Phelps Up says:

      Randy Velarde can go in the Ted Nelson Wing.

    • Havok9120 says:

      I’m with Jim. Either an imposter (God knows it’s happened before, especially to people as….well known as Ted) or Ted is finally cracking under the strain of the last week.

      Seriously, usually he cools down for a day or two after the 80 comment pyramid comment fights. Instead, he’s gone through three or four this week.

  31. tyrone sharpton says:

    how does david wells get less than 1%? if schilling gets votes for the postseason, why couldn’t he get more. oh, and poor morris and mcgriff. fucked for years to come

  32. Bo Knows says:

    The hall of fame, Where it’s ok to be racist, drunk, drug addicted, domestic abusing, womanizing, handicapped assaulting assholes

    But steroids are where we draw the line

  33. Scott says:

    I’m disgusted too but I’d distinguish between three points that could be criticized:

    1) The 60%ish who voted “no” on folks it’s relatively clear used forbidden PEDs like Palmiero, Bonds, Clemens, McGwire — I disagree with excluding all, but I’m on the fence, and reasonable minds could disagree here.

    2) The 30-40% who voted “no” on clear HOF’ers about whom there’s NO real basis for individualized suspicion beyond “they played in the late 90s & early 2000s” like Biggio & Bagwell — that’s moronic.

    3) But probably worst is that 2/3 voted “yes” on mediocrities like Jack Morris — that’s moronic too, and evidence a supermajority of voters have their heads up their asses, or at least stuck in the early 80s, before any advanced metrics that, frankly, shouldn’t count as “advanced” any longer. I mean, you don’t need a stats PhD to note that Jack’s ERA was barely better than the league’s, while enjoying top-notch defensive AND offensive support during his prime with Detroit.

  34. Jacob says:

    When it comes to roids mike is right, no evidence any of those guys used PED’s. I personally feel Clemons might be innocent and that his trainer was a liar. I think it is obvious bonds did use PED’s but still there is no evidence. Now for Piazza he has supposedly admitted it many times but still no evidence. and for other player like bernie? Was he a HOFer? I don’t make those descisions but I think it is so stupid guys like him and lofton automatically get kicked off. Ridiculous even aways from my own personal beliefs.

    • nsalem says:

      Do you think Andy Pettitte was lying amount Clemens also, as far as Piazza goes what can be possibly be more evidentiary then an admission by the end user (excuse me if that was a sarcastic statement.
      I agree with you that Bernie should at least be in the conversation for The Hall, but I think that Lofton though an all star fell far short of Hall of Fame standards. There are players in the Hall Of Fame with worse resumes then Lofton but I don’t think they deserve to be there either.

    • WhittakerWalt says:

      Eyewitness testimony from many, many different sources. The theory that they’re all lying makes zero sense. Who would have put them up to lying? Certainly not MLB, which would much rather the whole thing go away.
      Did Andy Pettitte lie? He’s the nicese, most holy-rolling guy on the planet. I can’t see him making that up.

      • Jacob says:

        Where did I mention that andy was lying about how he was not sure about what he heard? No where.

        • I am not the droids you're looking for... says:

          You said no evidence. That is a preposterous statement as has been thoroughly discussed above. No and zero are absolutes. The evidence may not be sufficiently conclusive depending on what court you’re talking about (criminal, public opinion, BBW) but to say no evidence? Pure idiocy.

  35. Jacob says:

    And bernie should have gotten more votes than Mattingly in my opinion, totally a opinionated thing though.

  36. Dalek Jeter (formerly: Raul Ibanez AKA Tom Marvolo Riddle AKA True Yankee(TM)) says:

    Players before 1947- didn’t play against all of the best possible talent because of racism? Pass, you get into the HOF.

    Players from 1947-1980s- Popping greenies(amphetamines) in the locker room before games? Pass, you get into the HOF.

    Players from 1985-2005- You MIGHT HAVE taken steroids, or there is hearsay evidence against you for it. You DO NOT get into the HOF.

    • nsalem says:

      I don’t think it’s fair to hold the player before 1947 responsible for a situation that was out of their control. It should also be noted that baseball was by far the most popular that attracted the top athletes. There were only 16 teams, twice as many farm teams meaning more players chasing for those jobs. There was also no night games and no air travel. I would though imagine there were amphetamines around pre 1947 and players used them back then also. I am not judging, but back in the 50′s and 60′s many of the amphetamines were distributed by the actual team trainers and doctors which I do not think was the case with steroids

  37. Mister D says:

    Greg Maddux pitched 21 straight seasons of 190+ innings, through age 42. If you want a candidate for outlier-based suspicion, shouldn’t he be right at the top of the list?

  38. Now Batting says:

    Eh, I don’t see what all the fuss is about. Everyone knew the steroid guys weren’t getting in. Biggio and Piazza will get in eventually. Hell, Yogi didn’t get in on his first try.

    • Havok9120 says:

      I’m kinda there at this point, as well. I mean, it’s a truly crummy situation (and bad for the sport in the long run), but few if any of us are actually SURPRISED by this.

  39. Dalek Jeter (formerly: Raul Ibanez AKA Tom Marvolo Riddle AKA True Yankee(TM)) says:


    On a funny note, I am now completely okay with Charlie Hustle not being in the HOF, he is now going to be a reality “star.”

  40. Greg says:

    I usually respect Mike’s opinion, but not about this. No problem with the statement on cheaters. Only too bad that (presumably) clean guys like Biggio got stuck.

    • RetroRob says:

      You may still respect his opinion.

      For example, I disagree with those who voted for Jack Morris because he’s not a HOF caliber pitcher by my standards, but I certainly respect their opinion and vote.

      • Mister D says:

        Its not that I disagree, but there’s such a fine line between respecting an opinion and validating it. The not-immaterial portion of Morris’ votes that aren’t misguided evaluations of his career that are protests against either PEDs or sabermetrics or both. That latter group doesn’t deserve the same respect as the former group.

  41. Mister D says:

    Mike, curious about Edgar over McGwire. McGwire was the better overall hitter and stayed in the field his entire career.

  42. RetroRob says:

    Let it be a cluttered nightmare. I was actually hoping, sort of, that no player was elected today. It’ll force an introspection among many BBWAA members and Hall voters on what exactly they’re trying to accomplish. I don’t believe expanding the number of potential votes a member can submit will make any difference, and in fact it will allow them to ignore the issue even longer.

    • Havok9120 says:

      Well, I think part of his point is that this would be a problem even without the PEDs issue. It’s the same as splitting the vote in politics when the office is one where a certain percentage, and not simply a plurality, of the vote is required. It becomes significantly harder for anyone to get in at all as more truly worthy candidates become eligible. In the case of the HOF, you could deadlock and have no one get in but have 15 guys get 65% of the vote or something silly like that.

      Unlike Mike, I’m not really all that worried about it. I’d be willing to bet that this kind of bottleneck has happened before. It’s why not every all-time and unquestioned great was a first ballot HOFer.

  43. Dalek Jeter (formerly: Raul Ibanez AKA Tom Marvolo Riddle AKA True Yankee(TM)) says:

    On a side note, I would love for somebody to check into the background of these “holier than thou” writers and see if any of them have ever broken any journalistic rules…I mean there are a bunch of people on the BWAA and I’m sure at least one of them has “borrowed” something with out giving credit or used an off the record comment from an un-named source.

    • Mister D says:

      Didn’t they break journalistic rules by not disclosing all they knew about steroids in baseball? Not all of them, of course, but some. (So maybe its just safe to assume they all did, right? Easier.)

      • Dalek Jeter (formerly: Raul Ibanez AKA Tom Marvolo Riddle AKA True Yankee(TM)) says:

        Technically, no. As long as they write about it afterwards, and say that the athlete is their informant they don’t have to.

    • Pat D says:

      I saw someone on Baseball Think Factory say there’s one guy who is a BBWAA voter and was once fired for plagiarism, but now I can’t seem to find that comment to confirm the guy’s name.

  44. Rizi Walnuts says:

    If this is where we’re at then MLB should re-edit the record books and restore Hammerin’ Hank and the Babe for starters.

  45. Andy Pettitte's Fibula (formerly Manny's BanWagon) says:

    It goes against logic to conclude that substances, which unquestionably makes an athlete bigger, stronger and faster and greatly enhances the effects of their training, has absolutely no positive effect upon improving performance.

    Are we to believe that Lance Armstrong create this elaborate system of PEDs usage that ultimately led to the ruination of his life for placebo effect?

    For the record, I believe that all deserving players from this era belong in the HOF because I believe the use of PEDs was so widespread that the playing field was essentially level.

    • josh0909 says:

      Bonds and Clemens were HOF’s even before the allegations of PED’s. Bond’s already had over 400 homers and over 300 stolen bases without juice. Clemens was already an elite pitcher without steroids, so this argument is irrelevant.

  46. TomG says:

    Why do we even care anymore? If I want to learn about good baseball players, I go to B-Ref. There’s really no need for some officially sanctioned curator, especially if the curator is laughably inconsistent and somewhat vindictive. Just start calling the career WAR leader board the hall of excellence or something and just ignore the HOF.

  47. Tut says:

    Aaron Sele got a vote?

  48. Pat D says:

    Someone on Baseball Think Factory mentioned that, somehow, despite no one being elected, this year featured the highest number of names per ballot in history, with something like 6.6 or so. I’m not sure if that constitutes progress.

    So here’s my new problem. Well, not really a new problem, but this comes into clearer illustration. I said that I would have voted for Clemens, Bonds, Biggio, Bagwell, Piazza, Schilling, Raines, Trammell, McGwire and Lofton. And I would have still voted for or strongly considered Martinez, Sosa, Palmeiro, McGriff and Bernie (mostly to prevent his exclusion from the ballot).

    Lofton and Bernie are gone now. So that opens up a whole one spot on my ballot. Oh, but here comes Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Mike Mussina, Frank Thomas and Jeff Kent! So what’s my ballot going to look like next year?

    My early guess: Maddux, Glavine, Thomas, Clemens, Bonds, Biggio, Bagwell, Piazza, Raines and Trammell. Which means I bump Schilling and McGwire, ignore Mussina and Kent and continue to neglect Martinez, Sosa, Palmeiro and McGriff.

    Luckily it gets easier in 2015 when only Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz, and Gary Sheffield get added.

    • RetroRob says:

      Lofton and Bernie being gone actually is one of the developing issues. I don’t think either of them are HOFers by my definition, but they will never get the debate. More players like them will be rapidly pushed off the ballot. It’ll get worse every year.

      Yet as I said above, I am not in favor of increasing the ballot beyond ten slots. I want the BBWAA to confront this overall issue, and there’s a better chance they’ll do that with ballot glut. More slots will allow them to moralize and dance around th issue.

      I’m open to be convinced differently, but that’s just one fan’s thoughts.

  49. endlessjose says:

    NO way you vote for Schilling.Can’t believe he got that many votes.Also Edgar should get in.Everybody says he didn’t play the field but that was due to him tearing his hamstring which led him to being a DH.

    He was a good third baseman and one of the best hitters of his era.

  50. commerce says:

    Mike Axisa: Without going player-by-player to examine the accuracy of your “no evidence” comment, let me remind you that Bonds admitted using a cream that wasn’t OK. He testified to that effect before a Grand Jury in SF…he, of course, said he didn’t know what he was using as he laid down ignorance as a defense. Never mind second-party evidence in “Game of Shadows” and Sheffield’s revelation that he was given the cream by Bonds. Like Barry, Gary didn’t know what he was using–according to GaryS.

    What say you?

    • I am not the droids you're looking for... says:

      Exactly. The zero evidence claim has been thoroughly discussed above. It’s a ludicrous statement.

  51. bkight13 says:

    To me the punishment fits the crime. Bonds, Clemens, Mcgwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, etc, all knew that steroids were illegal and gave them an edge. Most were already great, but PEDs made them immortal. They get to keep the money and the memories, but they don’t get a plaque in a small museum in a small town in Upstate NY. That’s the price they have to pay, just like Rose for betting on baseball while managing.

    • RetroRob says:

      Retroactivism. I suppose by my name I should be in favor of that, but I’m not. Listening to writers like Tom Verducci, they like to frame the discussion under the idea that this is the bargain that the PED users made. Those who used PEDs, on whatever level, from a single time to years of use, made an actual decision to sacrifice their chance at the HOF for the gain of PEDs. That’s nonsense. That wasn’t the “bargain.” That’s the bargain that Verducci has made with himself to justify his decision.

      Many of those same writers have also retroactively decided that Jack Morris was a better pitcher than he was. They never once voted him the best pitcher in the league, not even the second. When he came up for his first HOF vote in 2000, he barely received 20% of the vote. His candidacy was viewed as dead in the water. Yet the BBWAA have decided after his career was long over that he was a better pitcher than he was.

      • mustang says:

        If you use your not getting into the HOF so yes thats part of the “bargain”. Maybe they should of thought about that when they were sticking a needle in their ass.

      • bkight13 says:

        I never said it was an active decision they made at the time, but that it is a fair punishment. But they did know that they were breaking the law and the rules of baseball and did it anyways, so don’t act like they were innocent dupes.

    • mustang says:

      WINNER !!!!!

    • YanksFanInBeantown says:

      Steroids made Bonds immortal? At most they transformed him from Willie Mays into Babe Ruth. Bonds without steroids was better than A-Rod with them. In his natural prime he was a better hitter than Miggy while stealing 30-50 bases a year.

      • bkight13 says:

        I would say Babe Ruth was a baseball immortal. Bonds hit 73 HRs and his OB% was over 600. And Bonds w/o was not better than ARod with.

        • YanksFanInBeantown says:

          Babe Ruth was a baseball immortal. And so was Willie Mays, the best parallel to Bonds before he ascended to Ruth-hood.

          And look at the stats when comparing Bonds and A-Rod. Bonds’ peak in Pittsburgh and his first couple years in SF blow A-Rod’s years with the Rangers out of the water. Between 1989 and 1998, the last time anyone thinks he was clean, Bonds only had less than 7 fWAR once: He had 6 in less than 120 games during the strike in 1994. A-Rod has never had a streak of success like that, clean or dirty.

          And let’s compare them directly: If you assume A-Rod only used while he was playing for the Rangers he had 27.1 fWAR in his 26-28 seasons, 26.5 excluding UBR. Bonds had 27.7 in his 26-28 seasons before UBR data is available, and considering how much faster Bonds in his prime was than A-Rod in his prime, it’s safe to say that he would have seen a bit of a bump.

          So yeah, Bonds clean was better than A-Rod on steroids.

  52. Stephen says:

    Wow, I thought Steve Finley would at least get to the 5% mark and Bernie would retain his ballot status. Too bad for those 2. I’m not as big on Lofton. Also thought Wells would get to 10 votes or so, not that that matters.

    Thankfully we only have to fight off Morris for 1 more year.

    I wonder if Maddux/Glavine will get in together still. Bagwell and Biggio seems increasingly unlikely.

    Schilling’s very low total also doesn’t bode well for Mussina. I would’ve though he could be around 50%.

  53. mustang says:

    “There’s zero evidence (zero!) guys like Bonds, Clemens, ”

    There no reason to even comment because all rational thinking has left the building from the start.

    BTW OJ didn’t kill anyone either.

    • I am not the droids you're looking for... says:

      Exactly. The zero comment was roundly and soundly thrashed in comments above. Completely idiotic to state zero evidence.

  54. Improbable Island's Dirty Midget Whores (formerly RRR) says:

    We have no “proof” that Bonds did steroids except for the fact that it was blindingly obvious. But no hard evidence.

    Even so, circumstantial evidence does hold up in court sometimes, at least.

    I like the idea of putting people in, but defining, say, 1995 or so up to around 03′ or 04′ as the “Steroid Era”, and if you were actually caught you put an asterisk (Gasp! Asterisk!) next to their name.

    Is my definition of the era arbitrary? More or less I guess, but it more or less covers the period people think of when they think of the steroid era.

  55. MannyGeee says:

    Dear baseball writers and voters for the Hall of Fame Inductee guys:

    Go fuck yourselves, you ingdignant asshats. You know what else happened? Slavery, the Holocaust, 9/11, Columbine, and Disco. You know how I know that? Because history books tell us that they did. You know how bad all that stuff is? WORSE THAN STEROIDS!!!! But the rest of humanity doesn’t get the choice on what parts of history they choose to remember and which points they choose to ignore. Congratulations on sticking your heads in the sand about the past two decades of your sport. Jerks offs.

    • bkight13 says:

      So it is only is real if Bonds has a plaque in Cooperstown? The records still say Bonds hit 762 HRs and Pete Rose is the Hit leader. They just don’t get the “honor” of being in the HOF. I think you are being a wee bit over dramatic.

  56. Pistol Pete says:

    I don’t particularly like Clemens dr Bonds but not putting them in the HOF is absurd. Nobody really knows how many players took the juice my suspicion is that plenty did not just the ones that got caught. Craig Biggio got more votes than Clemens or Bonds, what a fucking joke.

  57. Jarrod says:

    If these writers can guarantee me that no roid cheat ever makes it to the HOF then I will back this type of decision. Fact is, they can’t. Let’s be honest, there are probably some already there.

    We will never know who ALL the cheaters are so you can’t go penalising the ones we found out about.

    Baseball as a whole, yes that includes these holier than thou writers, caused this problem by ignoring the issue while it was making the sport popular. Let’s not be so ignorant to pretend that we can reverse that by not electing people to the HOF based on accusations – which is all they still are.

    Be brave enough to introduce the testing to ensure the integrity of the game or stop persecuting the ones that got caught and pretending they are the only problem.

  58. toad says:

    Zero evidence??

    Come on. That’s just willful blindness.

  59. yazman says:

    If the new HOF requirement is “without a doubt never did PEDs” — the Hall should now be closed forever.

  60. yazman says:

    I say keep out the people who got caught using PEDs AFTER baseball began enforcing the rule.

    Before then, owners, players, fans AND writers all accepted them.

    Today’s vote is a shame.

  61. WhittakerWalt says:

    We’ll see what happens when Frank Thomas is eligible next year. Nobody was more anti-PEDs than him.

    • yazman says:

      Excellent point!

      Maddeningly, it’s not inconsistent to oppose PEDs and still use them.

      One can lobby FOR testing and enforcement to keep PEDs out of the game, but still decide to use them in order to compete while everyone else is using them.

  62. There's the Door says:

    So which is it, Mike Axisa? Either A) You think Bonds and Clemens were clean, or B) It doesn’t matter to you whether they were clean or not.

  63. Leave a Reply says:

    Bonds failed 3 drug tests. We have his doping calendar (“B.B.” in full view from Anderson’s collection). Bonds gained 35-40 lbs. of muscle in his mid-late 30s. Clemens was implicated by the same guy who implicated Pettitte, who admitted using. Pull your heads out of the sand (and other places).

Leave a Reply

You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

If this is your first time commenting on River Ave. Blues, please review the RAB Commenter Guidelines. Login for commenting features. Register for RAB.