Well, what can I say. I lost a lot of respect for you today.

Oh well, no one is perfect. but to vote for McGwire, Palmiero and Bagwell is to condone the use of PED's.

The only name on the ballot that I would vote for is Jack Morris.

* Unlike many voters, I do not eliminate players tainted by or actually found guilty of using performance enhancing drugs. My stance on their eligibility is quite simple: If MLB does not want a player in the Hall of Fame, it should do what it did with Pete Rose and ban him from eligibility. It's my job to vote on enshrinement, not determine eligibility. When a player has worthy credentials, I vote based on his ability. Yes, Mark McGwire used PEDs. But maybe half or more of the pitchers throwing to him also did? There are players I suspect of using PEDs who couldn’t hit .250.

I agree with this 100% actually. The league should step in and the writer(s) should not be the ones making the decision.

(please do not misunderstand or read this incorrectly and start flaming. I am only saying that punishment for unethical actions should be for the league or a committee that investigated. Not scores of independent writers across the country. Also, we all know the history of the leagues/players associations stance when it all was going on anyways ...take that into account).

...and also the scope of the PED's was insane back then so putting it on the writers to decide who benefited the most, how much it actually helped vs. how many other players were on PED' etc is just simply not fair. We still dont know even close to the story or scope of the scandal. Put the onus back on the league.

The steroid era of MLB is a touchy subject, who really knows who was using and who wasn't, aside from the super human growth we saw on some users. I do disagree with Bob about ignoring the use of PEDs, in my opinion if I were certain that someone was a user he would be disqualified out of hand. PED use is cheating, and there's no other way to describe it.

I have to ask you Bob, would you sit in on a high stakes poker game when you knew that the dealer was dealing from the bottom of the deck, I doubt it. The steroid use was no different, it was players trying to get an edge in any way that they could, legal or otherwise, and it should be treated accordingly.



I understand it was cheating. That being the case, take the cheaters off the ballot. -- Bob Smizik

Lee Smith: A dominant closer of his era and third all time in saves. Maybe I saw the Pirates light him up one too many times.

When he retired, he was first all time in saves with 478 in 18 seasons. In the Hall of Fame are Bruce Sutter (300 saves, 12 seasons) and Gossage (310 saves, 22 seasons).

Why the voters won't put Smith in the Hall makes no sense to me.

Bob--

What is the criteria for getting on the ballot? Who makes that decision? I ask because some of those 27 names you mentioned were really pedestrian players with absolutely no shot of getting in. (I mean Jeromy Burnitz? Brad Radke? Bill Mueller? Come on.)



A committee of I'm not sure who chooses the ballot. The committee is fairly generous. I have no problem with that. Give some of these guys their time in the sun. -- Bob Smizik

written by Hanover Bill, December 28, 2011 - 08:53 AM

The steroid era of MLB is a touchy subject, who really knows who was using and who wasn't, aside from the super human growth we saw on some users. I do disagree with Bob about ignoring the use of PEDs, in my opinion if I were certain that someone was a user he would be disqualified out of hand. PED use is cheating, and there's no other way to describe it.

I have to ask you Bob, would you sit in on a high stakes poker game when you knew that the dealer was dealing from the bottom of the deck, I doubt it. The steroid use was no different, it was players trying to get an edge in any way that they could, legal or otherwise, and it should be treated accordingly.

Well kind of I guess. But the point is how do you not know that both players werent cheating?

I guess my problem with putting this on the writers is that if baseball wanted to stop it or test or put rules in place in certainly could have happened.

Too many issues of not knowing the entire story to put it on the independent writers to make the ethical/investigative decision on hall of fame candidacy.

Kind of surprising that someone like you Bob would ignore the steroid use by some of these guys. I thought you were more of a baseball purist. Your analogy with Pete Rose is wrong. What Rose did probably didn't affect any performance on the field. But, what he did as far as gambling warranted a suspension or ban. The steroid users absolutely affected the performance on the field and that is why I think their stats are tainted. They really should not be considered for a hall of fame.


I fully understand their stats are tainted an said as much. Then take them off the ballot. -- Bob Smizik

For the life of me, I don't understand why Lee Smith hasn't been voted in. My guess is that he didn't have a gimmick pitch or pre-pitch routine, and wasn't controversial and probably not very quotable.

All he had going for him was that he was the most dominant closer of his era, 3rd in all-time number of saves, and arguably the most reliable closer ever ... guess that's not enough.

Bob

I disagree with some of your thought process. You get to be a gatekeeper to the hof. The way I see it, your ballot should weigh the use of PED.

The only player I would vote for is Tim Raines. The entire list is not too exciting after McGwire and Palmiero are eliminated.

Agree with your reasoning with Bagwell.

While I respect and understand your view on PEDs, I don't agree with it. If I were a writer, I might take the stance that I would not vote any of the obvious PED users into the HoF before Pete Rose (whom I think should get in). I like Paul Daugherty's line from his SI article awhile back, "In Cincinnati, fathers with good, long memories still tell their sons to "play the game like Pete did.'' Who would say that about the Steroid Era suspects?"

I hope Lee Smith doesn't make it. With Mariano a lock later this decade, that's about what it should take for a reliever to get in. So maybe Hoffman makes it too, but no other reliever should be considered given the numbers Rivera has put up. It makes many of the relievers currently in the HoF look pedestrian (will give Eckersley a pass as he had some great #s as a starter).

And I'm guessing that by saying no to Edgar, you're in the camp that no DH-only player should ever make it? OK by me.

Yes to Bagwell, but no to McGriff is a bit puzzling to me. If McGriff had retired at age 37 as Bagwell did, his OPS would have been higher. McGriff retired at age 40, and his OPS suffered the last couple of years. It's your vote and I'm not trying to convince you that either player is a HOF. But if you consider one of them to be, then the other ought to be as well.

written by Niblick, December 28, 2011 - 09:13 AM
Kind of surprising that someone like you Bob would ignore the steroid use by some of these guys. I thought you were more of a baseball purist. Your analogy with Pete Rose is wrong. What Rose did probably didn't affect any performance on the field. But, what he did as far as gambling warranted a suspension or ban. The steroid users absolutely affected the performance on the field and that is why I think their stats are tainted. They really should not be considered for a hall of fam

I am not trying to speak for anyone but the point seems to be that Pete Rose is banned by the league therefore not on a ballot, nothing to do with the extent of the issue or how it affected play vs. the steroid era.

See what is happening right now is me and you could get into a big argument over did Pete Rose actually affect any games. Then we could argue over how many players were on roids vs. how many got caught vs. how many didnt vs. how much they affected games because it there could have been 200 pitchers on PED's pitching to these balloon heads.

The point is we simply do not know squat, especially based on the league turning a blind eye for the most part.

I just agree that it should be up to the writers to decided who is "eligible" and who isnt. It leaves way too much open ended opinions.

....I mean shouldnt be up to the writers.

Thanks for sharing your thought process. It was fascinating and enlightening to see how you approach that task.

And kudos for not allowing the steroid issue to affect your vote! PEDs were part of the game in that era, and I'd wager your estimation of the percentage of pitchers who used is actually quite low.

In fact, I can't even call it "cheating." These ultra-competitive athletes were simply doing all they could to "enhance performance." And we paying fans knowingly ate it up. So did the media. A lot of big-name, national media people who wax indignant now were the same ones fawning over McGwire et al when the records were falling.

Finally, care to share your thoughts on how you used to vote for my all-time favorite Pirate, the great Dave Parker?


Parker is one of my all-time favorites, too. But just a bit below the line. If his career had not gone off track for a few seasons, he'd probably be in. -- Bob Smizik

I think it is fair to vote for a player who you are not sure of, but if a player has admitted it or been found guilty of it, that is a different story. The argument that, for instance, the pitchers were doing it too is valid since no one is sure, but a player who has come clean on it or been found guilty should not get a vote regardless of whether they are eligible or not.

Bob, I gotta say I agree with you on the steroids issue. It's not the place of a HOF voter to deny someone election based on steroids. It's MLB's job to keep him off the ballot, and you make an excellent point about the pitchers he faced. Is Barry Bonds in the Hall yet? If not, when he comes up, he should be in on the first ballot, unless MLB sees fit to ban him.

Just Say Yes
============

To Jack and the Crime Dog Bob ...

And whilst I understand your position wrt Morris v Blyleven and PEDs, I would argue that the HOF is constantly redefined every year by the addition of new members therefore the bar changes. Soooooo, IF you add McGuire's PED assisted home runs and IF Blyleven is added (even though YOU did not vote for hime) then you (you, being YOU and the collective you) need to readjust voting accordingly from year to year.

pwlad
djwgk

Bob, thanks for that breakdown... It is a scary place to see what's in your head (haha), but you make a strong case for your voting perspective. I think I agree on all accounts.

Bob,
Thanks for breaking down how you arrive at your vote. Good process; good article.

I agree with you on Big Mac, Palmiero, and Bagwell.

However, I'm real big not only on career #s but seasons. Dale Murphy was twice MVP——best in the whole National League. He was a 7-time All Star, 5-time Gold Glove, 2-time RBI leader, 2-different years Home Run leader, 2-time Slugging % leader in National League.

Sure, he has 40 less Home runs than Bagwell (but similar to Duke Snyder). Yet those MVPs, Gold Gloves, and 7 All Star games have got to count for something. One of the big reasons I was so against Blyleven making the Hall was that he only made 2 All Star games in 20 + seasons!

Please reconsider Dale Murphy's seasonal accomplishments.

To condone the use of steroids, either implicitly or explicitly, puts children at risk.

http://taylorhooton.org/

A logical approach.

I tip my cap to you Bob.

Again, I do not take All Star games and HOF to be that big of a deal. Back in the early 90s, I voted 2 years in a row for the baseball HOF. How was I able to do that?
I worked with a old time former sports writer who used to work for the Pgh Sun Times...the late great Jack Henry. Jack did not keep up with the game and knew that I did and trusted my judgement. I voted the years Steve Carlton and Mike Schmidt were inducted.
Just like then, there are many voters for the HOF who have no business doing so. I'm sure Mr Smizik is more than qualified.
When Barry Bonds is up for the HOF, he should be elected. With or without roids, he was one of if the the best player in his era. Same goes for Pete Rose. Both players are first class jerks, but since when is that a reason not to be in the HOF?



Jack Henry one of the all-time great storytellers. A very, very funny man and a fine gentleman. -- Bob Smizik

I tend to agree with Bob's position and it has nothing to do with whether I consider using PEDs cheating. I absolultely do and they are a stain on the game. That said...

We have absolutely no idea who used PEDs and who did not. The more we hear, the more it sounds like a lot more people were using then we would ever want to believe.

So players like McGwire get excluded because they were unlucky enough to be Jose Canseco's teammates, while other players get away with it because they never had to talk to congress. That's the jist of it.

We have no idea whether guys like Jack Morris or Cal Ripken or Ken Griffey were using or not. We can speculate but at the end of the day we don't know. Getting busted for steroids pre testing was random fluke (i.e., being Canseco's teammate). And who knows how many guys were using undectable drugs like HGH.

To me you do one of two things. You either shut down the hall to new members until the entire era is cleared out or you accept the fact that the steroid era is what it is and put the best players from that era in. A lot of guys were using PEDs...not many hit 650+ home runs.

I don't like it...but I think it has to be that way.

Unlike many voters, I do not eliminate players tainted by or actually found guilty of using performance enhancing drugs. My stance on their eligibility is quite simple: If MLB does not want a player in the Hall of Fame, it should do what it did with Pete Rose and ban him from eligibility. It's my job to vote on enshrinement, not determine eligibility.

This is the wisest stance on this issue that I have ever read.

Bob- I like the approach you take in only voting for those who you believe are deserving. There are a few who might get enough support as everyones forced #5 guy (or whatever) to get in. And I agree on Blyleven- great curveball but not HOF.
But I do question the part of the process where someone like you who is retired and no longer sees all of the players who has an equal vote with full-time sports writers. To me, it is the same as the college football coaches and write's polls- whereas no writer nor any college head coach can get to see every player across the US. So, as these polls are affected by folks who mean well but are not fully informed, how can the retired guy off the daily beat have an informed position? Something I wonder about...

Bob,

I understand it was cheating. That being the case, take the cheaters off the ballot. -- Bob Smizik

Let me first say I always enjoy this post every year. It's a really cool glimpse inside the mind of a hall of fame voter. And you seem to evaluate these guys in the most logical way possible.

The only issue I take is with the steroids thing. To me, everybody is passing the buck, so to speak, on this issue and it needs to stop somewhere. Voters say take them off the ballot. MLB says leave it to the voters to decide their fate.

It's just like when steroids were going around - I bet the teams knew and said well, let's turn a blind eye and if this guy gets busted let MLB handle it. Then MLB turns around and says well we didn't know it was as big of a problem as the teams and players did. And no one wants to heed the final call.

I certainly respect your opinion, and I'm sure you can respect mine, but I think it is the voters' job to keep these PED users out of the Hall. MLB is offering up an arbitrary, unbiased list of players eligible. That's it. Even the joke candidates like Mulholland are on there. If a player isn't banned from baseball for life then they are on the ballot. As a Hall of Fame voter, it is your job to help decide who gets in and who doesn't. That's why you probably have a write-in spot, because you can even color outside the lines a little.

I would disagree that MLB needs to leave people off the ballot if they don't want you to consider them. There's more than a few voters who want to pass the buck back to MLB on the steroid issue as evidenced by McGwire's 20 percent or so that he gets. And I just think that's wrong. Because what comes next is if Barry Bonds, who so openly, blatantly, and disrespectfully cheated to deliberately taint the record books, is enshrined one day because "he was on the ballot", I will disown baseball and the Hall of Fame altogether.

To condone the use of steroids, either implicitly or explicitly, puts children at risk.

http://taylorhooton.org/

Please stop muddling up the board with your whining.

I guess my problem with putting this on the writers is that if baseball wanted to stop it or test or put rules in place in certainly could have happened.

Too many issues of not knowing the entire story to put it on the independent writers to make the ethical/investigative decision on hall of fame candidacy.

But we're past that point. It's too late for that regardless of whether you're right or wrong. The names are on a ballot and need to be sent back. The writers, like it or not, are Saint Peter at the pearly gates, and it's time to decide. The responsibility falls with the writers.

...
This would have been a good time to include in the column what MLB says is the criteria for election to the HOF.

Bob's rational for ignoring obvious PED use is a convenient place to "hide".

It sounds very reasonable, but it leaves moral judgment up to "them". MLB? The committee?

If you love baseball, and Max thinks Bob does, then isn't there some responsibility to criticize baseball when it does bad things? And doesn't that include objecting to honoring rule breakers?

I'm just sayin' . .

Jack Henry one of the all-time great storytellers. A very, very funny man and a fine gentleman. -- Bob Smizik

Oh yeah could he tell a story! He was a big boxing and tennis fan. He was a gentleman...except if you said someting knocking the democrats....he let me have it just for standing on Grant Street to watch the President Bush in 1991 drive by.

none of the steroid guys belong in the hall, period. they took drugs to improve their playing ability and then most of them lied about it. not exactly the role models you want representing the best of baseball.

Bob,

If you believe Stargell belongs in the HOF, then you might want to reconsider McGriff.

You wrote that you can't vote for McGriff because his ops was under .900. McGriff's ops was .886, only three points lower than Stargell's .889. And he did have slightly more HRs and RBI than Stargell.

Since you mentioned ops as a criterion for Hall consideration, I feel compelled to note that Roberto Clemente's ops was .834, not much more than average for a corner outfielder. But his 3,000 hits and .317 career average are worthy of his HOF standing.

Rich W wrote: I hope Lee Smith doesn't make it. With Mariano a lock later this decade, that's about what it should take for a reliever to get in. So maybe Hoffman makes it too, but no other reliever should be considered given the numbers Rivera has put up
------------------
So Rich, I suppose if some power hitter comes along and only hits 604 HRs in his career, he shouldn't be voted in.

...

I fully understand their stats are tainted an said as much. Then take them off the ballot. -- Bob Smizik

Until "they" take them off the ballot, Bob can take them off his ballot.

This would have been a good time to include in the column what MLB says is the criteria for election to the HOF.

Surely Max has bookmarked a link to the website referred to as google.

http://baseballhall.org/hall-f...tion/bbwaa

none of the steroid guys belong in the hall, period. they took drugs to improve their playing ability and then most of them lied about it. not exactly the role models you want representing the best of baseball.

Should Mickey Mantle, Willie Stargell, and many, many others be removed from the Hall of Fame because they took performance-enhancing, and illegal, amphetamines? From the 1940's onward, a majority of baseball players were using amphetamines...



Good point. -- Bob Smizik

Yes to Bettis!

Yes to Dawson!

Yes to Cowher!

...oh whoops, wrong Hall of Fame.

Seriously, I'd vote McGriff in based on nickname alone. "Crime Dog"!

Bob,

I understand your stance about voting for guys on the ballot. Believe me, leaving Palmeiro off the ballot would be incredibly difficult for me.

Where you lose me is on McGwire. Don't you have to at least spend more than two seconds speculating on how good a player would have been outside the steroid era? McGwire couldn't hit, run, throw or field. His entire career is the power generated by steroids. He's as easy to leave off as Phil Nevin.

Respectable article and opinions Bob; however I will never agree that writers like you should determine who and who does not enter the HOF. That is not meant to be a bash towards you or your work.

McGwire, Sosa or Palmiero, will probably never get elected by the writers. If Bonds and Clemens are not elected by the writers then the whole process will lose all credibility...whatever it has left among the fans.

In the end hopefully these players will be elected in by the veterans committee. Who I believe should be doing the electing in the first place.

Bob-- I am impressed with how open you were with your HOF voting process. I would venture to guess that there are others who are a lot less forthcoming. You open yourself up to a ton of criticism by explaining your reasoning and rationale. Nice job.

I disagree with your reasoning on guys like McGwire, as I would never vote for him. But, your reasoning is logical and should be respected.

Tony Womack? Terry Mulholland? Wow! Why not Ed Spanky Kirkpatrick on the ballot as well.

written by chollister, December 28, 2011 - 08:47 AM

The league should step in and the writer(s) should not be the ones making the decision.

It's a corrupt league that cares about one thing above all else at this point... $$$.

@Bob: "Day in the sun?"

The MLB HOF is becoming a joke thanks to the cheaters. I say lower the standards each decade and let them all in. Only then will they see the damage caused by their indiscretions. If that is what you feel is a day in the sun, vote for those that have gotten results regardless of how they did it.


My day in the sun comment was in reference to people like Tony Womack. There's no harm -- none -- putting them on the ballot. As for the Hall become a joke, it is keeping the cheaters OUT. -- Bob Smizik

I fully understand their stats are tainted an said as much. Then take them off the ballot. -- Bob Smizik

You expect their accomplices (Bud Selig & the owners) to step up and do the right thing? You are being naive Bob.

But thanks for the article, a very interesting read.

...
So, Max has done a little research for Bob's column, and found this, using 21"s link above:

5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

Hmmm...
Voting is based on the 6 things in point #5 above.

HALF OF THEM ARE INTEGRITY, SPORTSMANSHIP AND CHARACTER.

And those can be ignored, if some committee also ignored them?

If you are going to abdicate responsibility to a committee, why not just abdicate the whole thing to that committee?

(Yes, Max realizes the voters are just another committee.)

One thing that has always bothered me about HOF voting is that there seems to be very little attention paid to a player's defensive skills.

I know some players winning Gold Gloves was mentioned, but there are/were many players who were excellent defensively, but won few gold gloves.

In addition, a player is playing a position for 9 innings; they only hit on average 4 times per game. Thus, IMHO, more attention should be paid to a players defense.

I am not for or against Larkin, but he is an excellent example. I would bet most voters will look at his career offensive stats and numbers of Gold Gloves and make their decision. Shouldn't a voter no where he ranked year in and year out in number of assists, DPs, etc...?

HALF OF THEM ARE INTEGRITY, SPORTSMANSHIP AND CHARACTER.

Personally, I couldn't vote for McGwire for the Hall or any of the known cheaters, however Max, different voters might weight those criteria differently.

Very nice article, Bob. Thanks for that insight into how you/voters think out their ballots.

As far as the PED players, IMO none of them should be in until Pete Rose is in.

Most of them, like McGuire, Clemens and Sosa, would not get an extra look from me due to the smug way they handled themselves through the hearings and everything else.

But that's just my opinion...and Bob has his as do everyone on these boards.

I don't really care about amphetamines. Mickey Mantle played on a really bum knee his whole career while also eating 2 steaks and having 10 beers for dinner each night, THEN going out for the night. I don't care if he ever popped a single greenie. I don't even care about steroids when they're used to help heal an injury faster. But there's a line and guys like Sosa, McGwire, Bonds and Palmiero crossed it. Not a single one of those guys belongs in a hall of fame anywhere unless it's for liars and cheaters with egos bigger than their artificial biceps.

Think of the audacity of a guy like Bonds. A who gets jealous of the attention Sosa and McGwire were receiving, which was fueled by steroids, and decided those records should be his. So now HE was going to juice. Barry Bonds took steroids to intentionally assault and take over specific records to feed his own ego. He took steroids to manipulate the record books, lied about it for years, and irreparably harmed the game. If he ever gets in the Hall I'm through and I can't see why anyone would endorse his enshrinement. He's the face of the reason a lot of Americans turned their back on baseball and turned to the NFL.

So here is how the ballot is created:

"A. BBWAA Screening Committee — A Screening Committee consisting of baseball writers will be appointed by the BBWAA. This Screening Committee shall consist of six members, with two members to be elected at each Annual Meeting for a three-year term. The duty of the Screening Committee shall be to prepare a ballot listing in alphabetical order eligible candidates who (1) received a vote on a minimum of five percent (5%) of the ballots cast in the preceding election or (2) are eligible for the first time and are nominated by any two of the six members of the BBWAA Screening Committee."

So guys like Womack and Radke were nominated by at least 2 of the 6 Screening Committee members. Those guys sure aren't setting the bar very high for consideration.


Don't quite understand your problem with those guys being on the ballot. What does it hurt? It's not like they were bums. All had decent careers. They're on the ballot one year, don't get enough votes to stay on, and are gone. -- Bob Smizik

I believe Barry Larkin deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. With all due respect to Ozzie Smith, Larkin was the best all around shortstop of his era.

I think Larkin should be in, as well. He was an excellent fielder and would have had more gold gloves if his career hadn’t run simultaneous to Ozzie Smith. Also, he was a far superior offensive player than Smith.

In reference to Wee Willie’s comments about considering defensive proficiency more than it is currently considered, I completely agree. I cringed when Jim Rice was elected to the Hall. He played side by side with Dwight Evans, and they have very similar offensive statistics, but Evans was the best fielding CF of his era, while Rice was like Ryan Doumit in the field. I don’t believe that Rice should be in the Hall, but if Rice is a “D” list Hall of Famer, then Evans is at least a “B.” Rice is the most undeserving Hall of Famer that played from the 1970’s onward. Its an absolute travesty that he was elected. Dale Murphy, his contemporary, was a much better player, as well

If you are steroid drivin. You do not get my vote EVER. Starting with McGuire....
Jack Morris, in. 18yr career, 254 wins!! 5 time All Star, 1981 pitcher of the year, 3 world series rings with 3 different teams!!! 4 world series pitching wins, 3800+ innings pitched.... Smells like a HOFer, Walks like a HOFer, Quacks like a HOFer.
But steroid driven Mcquire you say yes too??? Read your reasoning, just don't see it.
cheers
David



And how do you know that Morris didn't used PEDs? You don't. -- Bob Smizik

For those of you who are against putting "cheaters" in the hall of fame I ask again...how do you know who is cheating?

What happens if you vote in a "clean" player like Jack Morris and then he some day admits to using PEDs the last five years of his career? I'm not saying he did...but I don't know that he did not.

Have you ever wondered exactly how Cal Ripken played 2,600 straight games? Maybe he did it clean, maybe he had help. We don't know but I don't hear any calls for an investigation.

The more we learn, the more we should realize that a very high number of players were using these things. And while I'm strongly against innocent until proven guilty the reality is that there are probalby numerous players in the HOF right now that were on PEDs.

You either let them all in on merit, or you do not let anybody in.

Okay, MAJOR OOPS ABOVE.

Should have said, "while I'm strongly IN FAVOR OR innocent until proven guilty..."

Everything else stays the same.

richie and Bob,

The mention of Jack Henry made my day. I had him for a sports reporting class at Point Park College, and the last 15-20 minutes of class (2 1/2 hour night class) was a time of incredible stories. Often quite funny (a favorite line was "never seen the guy sober a day in his life). He also told us humorous tales about a guy that I think worked at the Post-Gazette who was hilariously clueless. Jack said he once left his car in Philly during a road trip and took a train back to Pittsburgh....then called the cops because he didn't see his car back in Pittsburgh and thought it was stolen, forgetting it was in Philly.

He also used to identify people by their ethnicity, as in "he was a Croatian fellow." I also learned from him that Duquesne's basketball coach in the 50s was quite a character. But I also learned a great deal about writing.

Anyway, that did make my day. Now for an on-topic question for you - do you ever figure out stats for hall of fame players based on averages of the day? Example - comparing a guy like Sosa's power stats, who played when there were a lot more 30+ HR guys, with a HOF player from say the 70s when there weren't as many HR's hit?

The problem with keeping suspected steroid users out of the HOF is that the best players of the era inevitably are the ones that get accused of using.

Nobody here is arguing that steroid use was far more widespread than Bonds, McGuire, Palmiero, Clemens, etc, yet because they were better than the other users, they get singled out.

So, we should vote for the second tier players simply because they didn't put up good enough numbers to be accused of using? How is that proof they didn't cheat?

The game has changed so much over the years that the steroid era should be handled no differently. The best of the best deserve to be recognized.

Lots of hyperbole there, Dan.

Steriods help you build muscle. It sounds like you're suggesting that Bonds, McGuire, etc cheated "more" simply because they put up better stats.

Bonds, McGuire, etc put up better stats because they were better hitters, not because they used more steroids.

Not sure if you should toss out Edgar Martinez like that. Wasn't he one of the best hitters in baseball for several years? (Sorry, no time to actually check it out myself.)



Highly regarded DH but with under 309 HRs, 1,261 RBIs. Not even close. -- Bob Smizik

Fyi--amphetamines became perscription drugs in 1965. Prior to that they were over the counter.

http://www.chacha.com/question...de-illegal

And to say that "uppers" improved your performance on any type of scale like steriods and HGH is just silly.

Your decision to vote for steroid users is sad and one you shouldn't be proud of. Key in "Kelli White steroids" and (if you need it) you will hear her talk about how incredible the benefits are from illegal PEDS. She's one of the few athletes that was honest after being caught.

Why you would need to read about her when you have people like Sammy Sosa and Brady Anderson is beyond me. But hey, let's ignore the fact that Marion Jones won 5 Olympic gold medals when she was on steroids and could barely make the 'final 8' in any event four years later when she was off PEDs. Into the Track Hall of Fame she goes if you had a vote.

Sports used to be about celebrating natural athletic achievement. Now you wonder if you are celebrating natural achievement or a needle and a vial of drugs. It's clear that you couldn't care less if the achievement is real or artificial. The fact that their 'names are on the ballot' is not justification for you voting for them. Don't pass off your lack of ethics onto someone else.

@heartbeatsings:

Won't SOMEBODY please think of the CHILDREN?

If you want to exclude the entire steroid era from HOF consideration, it should be done at the MLB level. If you're worried about the message being sent to kids, teach your own about the ill health effects. Find examples of guys who used steroids and developed heart conditions in their 40's. That "sends the wrong message to children" canard has been used for all sorts of crusades, including the War on (some) Drugs, prohibition of birth control, and even suppression of dissent.

"My day in the sun comment was in reference to people like Tony Womack."

Precisely. And I don't want a cheaters shadow cast on his small day in the sun by being referenced to the same sheet of paper you call a ballot.

We are comparing a hard-working honest man who gave his life to a profession TO something else (you fill in the blank).

Too bad about Murphy and Walker not having the stats. Guess if they reached in the medicine cabinet they might have made it.



How do you know they didn't? -- Bob Smizik

A long shot perhaps but I would not dismiss Edgar Martinez so easily.

Edgar Martinez

Of all those you dismissed early, he is the one I think you should reconsider. I'm not 100% that he is a HoFer, but I do think he is a strong bubble candidate and would not be shocked if he someday makes it. The rest on that list, I agree with.

A dominant closer of his era

That's why I *would* vote for Lee Smith.

I will not vote for a players because he’s better than someone in the Hall.

I don't think that is the point. The point is to vote someone in who is better than the worst person already in. The point is to vote someone in who would fit in with the rest of the candidates. If someone would be an average HoFer at their position (meaning there are several better AND several worse), then that *is* a good argument for selection, i.e Ron Santo.

An outstanding offensive shortstop with three Gold Gloves.

"Outstanding." He finally broke Ozzie's stranglehold for a Gold Glove at SS. I think he's a no-brainer HoFer.

I think you have convinced me that Fred McGriff *is* a HoFer. But considering you already have 3 1B on your ballot I can see why you might not want to vote a 4th.

Tim Raines is just one of those guys that can never live up to another player even though he was an outstanding player himself. If Rickey isn't around, I think Raines makes it to the Hall pretty easily. I'd vote for him.



Actually, Jay Bell broke Ozzis's streak of Gold Gloves.
Take a look at the career numbers of E. Martinez. They will surprise you. -- Bob Smizik

PghINCle:

The point that appears to be totally lost on you you is this:

Unless you're actually Tony Womack, you literally have no idea whether he used or not. Assuming such a thing even exists, does he fit the "profile" of a user? No.

Does that mean he didn't?

Absolutely not.

Until this is a certain and conrete way of verifying who used and who didn't there is just no reasonable to way to tell for sure. That's the issue with only punsihing those who are caught and or admitted.

There's also the issue with the fact that the guys who got them out, both pitchers and fielders, are quite likley the same folks who also used.

As much as I loathe cheaters, in this case it's not as black and white as you want it to be. Nor will it likely ever be.

Bob: one of your all-time best posts. First of all it is quite likely a slew of .250 hitters & poor pitchers were also juicing. Juicing DID NOT automatically make one a star. Second not one of the sanctimonious "I won't vote for a juicer" types knows with any certainty who was a juicer and who wasn't. Third Lee Smith not being in the Hall is beyond absurd.

Richie,while I agree with you that " being a jerk " does not disqaulify one for the HOF,gambling and betting against the team you are Managing does,and should !

Sorry for the spelling of disqualify. Trying to type too fast !

I don't think others take the vote as serious or logically as Bob. In reference to the response to scrapper I witnessed all of both Parker and Bagwell's careers. I believe Parker was a better player. Bagwell would not get my vote.

Won't SOMEBODY please think of the CHILDREN?

@gphismon: You can ignore the fact that teens using steroids and HGH is far more dangerous than when adults do it, but I won't.

If you want to exclude the entire steroid era from HOF consideration, it should be done at the MLB level

That is a cop out. Each voter has a brain, has eyes and presumably has a conciensce. And since when did MLB become infallible? Did you see the 18 inning Pirates/Braves game?

And it's very clear that these players would be average or less major leaguers without the PED's. McGwire is, at best, Greg Luzinski without help. Palmiero is Ritchie Zisk. Bagwell is Jason Thompson.

Why would you want them in the HOF?

Lee Smith deserves to be in. At one time, he was the all time leader in saves. He played a good part of his career when complete games were uncommon (about 15% of all starts in the 80's) but not rare like they are today (only about 3%). Lifetime ERA of 3.03. Not bad at all.

Tony Womack is on the ballot? What a laugh!

At one time, I was of the opinion that the cheaters should not get in. But really, they were just the best of a vast majority who were doping.

Brady Anderson hitting 50HR one year? Jay Bell hitting 38 with Arizona that one year? That tells me right there the use was rampant.

I think for this reason, MLB can't just eliminate those who got caught. If they want to do anything, just make a footnote of the era that steroid use was popular.

heartbeatsings:

Bagwell is Jason Thompson

Bagwell has never been caught nor has he admitted use.

So why are we looking to exclude him again?

Take a look at the career numbers of E. Martinez. They will surprise you. -- Bob Smizik

I went to baseball-reference.com and it did surprise me- they have him just behind Willie Stargell on their all-time hitter list. Over .300 from 90-92 and 95-01 and a number of league leader positions in BA, RBI and .933 lifetime OPS

@heartbeatsings: We're obviously going to continue to disagree. I think there's a reason why managers manage, umpires make calls on the field, and MLB rules on issues such as suspensions and HOF eligibility.

I don't know how you can say it's "very clear" that the players you mentioned would be "average" or less without PEDs. McGuire would be Greg "The Bull" Luzinski? I'd take that in a "heart beat." Jeff Bagwell would be Jason Thompson? What about Barry Bonds? He was an All-Star with the Pirates, long before his body and head started to swell from steroid use. Somebody made a very good point about players using amphetamines since the 1940s. What do you want to do, ban everybody after Babe Ruth?

As for the harm to children, how many kids die each year playing football in high school or younger? How many are paralyzed? Maybe we should ban the sport altogether. I can understand removing the idolization of PED users, but kids have to reach a certain level before a MLB career even becomes a remote possibility. If they don't already have the talent and work ethic, PED's or none isn't going to matter.

Turns out, I was right

@Bob--so you will vote for Clemens when he's eligible?

But you are right, you have to assume that everyone cheated.

written by csf, December 28, 2011 - 10:31 AM
Rich W wrote: I hope Lee Smith doesn't make it. With Mariano a lock later this decade, that's about what it should take for a reliever to get in. So maybe Hoffman makes it too, but no other reliever should be considered given the numbers Rivera has put up
------------------
So Rich, I suppose if some power hitter comes along and only hits 604 HRs in his career, he shouldn't be voted in.

IMO, Sutter, Fingers and Gossage should not be in the HoF. Honestly didn't think Smith was all that. He was a beneficiary of changing times. That he's still on the ballot while John Franco isn't is absurd. And for the years 1982-1992 a solid argument can be made that Jeff Reardon was that era's dominant closer.

Let the Vets committee vote him in 15 years from now along with Franco, Reardon, Quisenberry and who knows, maybe even Tekulve. Because Smith wasn't significantly better than any of them.

And I'd take ALL of them in a post-season game over Smith, who was worthless in his two appearances.

the old time players took amphetamines (and other similar drugs) to help them stay alert. they're a far different category of drugs than the guys we're talking about here took and they took them for entirely different reasons. there was also no rules against them taking those medications. amphetamines did nothing to extend players careers or change their physical appearance so drastically that they didn't look like the same person. mantle and many of his contemporaries were anything but choir boys...the same could be said for the guys in the ruth era....but they weren't shooting themselves in the butts with juice that they knew was illegal and then lying about it for years.

@gphishmon: Barry Bonds gives us the rule of thumb on how to judge what steroids do for you. He was a great player before taking them and became the greatest player ever while taking them. Using that as a base, you can safely extrapolate what McGwire and the rest would have been without them.

As for Bagwell, very strong suspicions have followed him and are the reason he didn't make in the HOF last time. Just google "Bagwell Steriods" and you'll see.

As for amphetamines--they weren't illegal until 1965. And how they enhance performance in a game like baseball is highly debatable and certainly pale in comparison to steroids and HGH, just look at the Home Run numbers. They don't lie.

Heartbeatsings:

As for Bagwell, very strong suspicions have followed him and are the reason he didn't make in the HOF last time

So now we're extrapolating "suspicions" too? And where exactly does that stop? And whose "suspicions" are the baseline?

And how they enhance performance in a game like baseball is highly debatable

Much like steroids, that's actually very debateable.

Beyond that though, it's either all the cheaters or none. Even taking that greenies didn't affect performance moreso than steroids at face value, it's still all cheating.

There is no such thing as "a little cheating", much like a woman is not just a "little pregnant".

So Bagwell should be kept out of the HOF because of "strong suspicions?"

In the meantime we will simply act like it was perfectly natural for a shortstop to play 2,600 consecutive games.

NOBODY KNOWS who was was doing this. The estimates however range from 50% to 85% between Conseco and Caminitti's statements. And for every Brady Anderson or Gary Matthews Jr. who bulks up for one year there is some skinny middle reliever doing the same thing. Jason Grimsley, a career journeymen ended up being the biggest HGH user and dealer in the game.

So in the absence of a failed test or a public confession, we are left to speculate. And that's a dangerous game.

Either you elect the best players of the era on merit, PEDs or no, or you shut down the hall to new entrants until you clear the entire era out. And even then you'll never know for sure.

Beyond that though, it's either all the cheaters or none. Even taking that greenies didn't affect performance moreso than steroids at face value, it's still all cheating.

@B to the C: There is no debate as to how steroids enhance performance. That issue was settled long ago.

Prior to 1965 (and perhaps as late 1971 when they were added to the Fed "no no" list), greenies were not illegal and not cheating.

As for how they enhance performance, try popping a couple and then waiting on a curve ball or breaking ball. You'll likely swing twice before it crosses the plate.

"My point is this: Who is to say many, many others who have never come under scrutiny also were juicers. -- Bob Smizik"

You are to be commended for questioning Roger Clemens, but the statement above is another fabricated justification for your own lack of principle.

Using your logic, the courts would never send any criminal to jail...because others may have committed the same crime and not been caught. If a journalist plagiarizes material, the newspaper should ignore it because 'they have no idea how many other journalists have done similar'. What a great world that would lead to.

Sorry I guess I just don't get the way you blame Major League Baseball (they put the name on the ballot) and the other players (they may have also been juicing) for your unethical decision. Baseball cheaters were rewarded with big contracts. How you, in good conscience, can argue that they should also be rewarded with a Hall of Fame vote is beyond me.

"Charlie's" Hustle came in a little green pill or an off-white powder.

@RickJ

Your point is over the top hyperbole.

There is a huge difference between the Hall of Fame argument and the criminal justice argument you make. Two credible sources in the matter, Canseco and Caminitti estimated that between 50% and 85% of MLB players were using PEDs. That means the odds are somewhere from 1 out of 2 to 85 out of 100 players were doing this.

I'm guessing that there are not similar odds to committing crimes in the US. More likely, its probably about 1 in 1,000 on that front.

Given those estimates, there is an extremely high likelihood that so called "clean players" were not so clean after all, they were just lucky to not get caught. Does Jason Grimsley (if you even remember him) look like a PED guy to you? Biggest user and dealer in the sport was a 12th reliever.

Are you so sure that a MLB shortstop played 2,600 straight games without medical help ??? I'm not. But he's in the HOF.

Heartbeatsings:

There is no debate as to how steroids enhance performance. That issue was settled long ago

That's not necessarily true. There are actual doctors out there that it does not. Case in point:

http://joeposnanski.si.com/201...-steroids/

So while there seems to be a consensus amongst most that it does, it is still up for debate, even amongst doctors.

@B to the C: Eric Walker is no doctor, he was a sports consultant who worked for the Oakland A's during the Bash Brother era. I would say his opinions are akin to those who give proof that the space missions to the moon never happened.

Off the baseball topic for one moment. A friend asked me that if (God Forbid) Crosby cannot play again, is he a Hall of Famer? I answered..."immediately'...any thoughts? Can he NOT be??

And how do you know that Morris didn't used PEDs? You don't. -- Bob Smizik

AGREED.... But we do KNOW that Mark McGuire did....
If allow this, then why no Pete Rose? Illegal is Illegal.

Bottomline you are voting per your experience and earned right.
My main point was that Morris deserves to be a HOFer IMHO.
Cheers
David

He is first in home runs per at bat (10.65), well ahead of Babe Ruth (11.76).

Two different eras - livelier balls, better bats, shorter ballparks and better (less water-downed) pitching... higher mound too...

And, while Babe was full of beer and hot dogs, Mark was juiced!

Bob -

Off topic, but I happened to click on a banner ad for "The Pittsburgh Press afternoon electronic edition" and viewed a sample dated yesterday. At the top of the front page, it said "Smizik: Winners, Losers Page 10". Are you a columnist for this publication???

"That's not necessarily true. There are actual doctors out there that it (steroid use) does not (work)." Yes and there is likely a historian out there who still claim that the earth if flat. So what.

Marian Jones goes from a steroid-induced 5 Gold medals in 2000 to being up the track in EVERY event in 2004 when she competes without steroids. Roger Maris' record of 61 home runs is unchallenged for decades and suddenly there are multiple players hitting over 70 home runs in a season. Brady Anderson goes from 15 to 50 home runs in one season. Kelli White never even wins a STATE sprinting title; she goes on steroids and several months later she wins the U.S. title and the World Championships.

What exactly does it take for some people, including Joe Posnanski, to stop debating their effect. The answers simple, common sense.

MLB has nothing to do with the HOF eligibility. It can rule as to the good standing of any of its participants. However, the HOF itself sets the standards for eligibility to be elected into its membership.

Players are currently inducted into the Hall of Fame through election by either the Baseball Writers Association of America (or BBWAA), or the Veterans Committee,[10] which now consists of three subcommittees, each of which considers and votes for candidates from a separate era of baseball. Five years after retirement, any player with 10 years of major league experience who passes a screening committee (which removes from consideration players of clearly lesser qualification) is eligible to be elected by BBWAA members with 10 years' membership or more. From a final ballot typically including 25–40 candidates, each writer may vote for up to 10 players; until the late 1950s, voters were advised to cast votes for the maximum 10 candidates

In 2001 the HOF decided that anyone banned by MLB or on its ineligibility list is thus ineligible for the Hall.

Thus the HOF leaves it up to its voters to apply their own standards to vote for someone. If a player is not banned by MLB he can appear on the ballot and the writers can vote their conscience.

I happen to agree with Bob about the steroids users. I've stated my position on so-called PEDS in this forum previously. The designation is ridiculous and arbitrary.

Other commenters have given very good reasons why the issue shouldn't matter, from knowing with certainty who used to the fact that before steroids, other drugs were the choice to help performance, and many of our beloved players in the HOF were among the users.

heartbeatsings:

]

I would say his opinions are akin to those who give proof that the space missions to the moon never happened.

Pretty neat how you dismiised that right out of hand with an ad hominem.

With that said:

http://www.vancouversun.com/sp...story.html

Sports medicine experts acknowledge the drugs may help, raising the possibility Braun might have been doing just that.

Dr. Susannah Briskin, a primary care sports medicine physician with Rainbow Babies and Children’s Hospital in Cleveland, says the potential injury recovery benefits associated with anabolic steroids have been tested on a limited basis but only on animals.

“This stuff will never end up being studied with humans,” Briskin said. “Any medical study must start with, `Do no harm.’ The problem is, there’s been a lot of harm proven in studying anabolic steroids.”

Sounds like there's no hard data out there and it's far from a definite to me. Hut feel free to argue it anyway....

rickj:

Yes and there is likely a historian out there who still claim that the earth if flat. So what

What does a historian have to with doctors? I think you'll be hard pressed to find any scientist claim that the earth is flat. I'd love to be proven wrong on that.

Which leads me to:

What exactly does it take for some people, including Joe Posnanski, to stop debating their effect.

Perhaps, you know an some scientific studies that actually quatify their effect.

I personally beleive that they do help, at least in part, but I'm not as arrogant enough to not acknowledge that it's anything but a proven fact at this point.

Particulary with respect to hitting baseballs, which is far more than just muscle tone, mass and density.

Ahab - "Given those estimates, there is an extremely high likelihood that so called "clean players" were not so clean after all, they were just lucky to not get caught."

There is NO doubt in my mind that a number of successful baseball players cheated and are now in the Hall of Fame. We saw steroids in the 1970's for goodness sakes with the East German women's swim team.

My problem with this is simple. The Hall of Fame is supposed to celebrate athletic excellence in a sport. When a player is PROVEN through testing to have cheated, then his statistics go out the window from my perspective. His, or her, 'athletic excellence' resulted from a needle and vial. I could never reconcile myself to say, 'sure he cheated and he lacks integrity, but I'm going to reward him with my Hall of Fame vote because other players may have cheated and not been caught'.

In my mind, my Hall of Fame vote (for a cheater) would be just as dishonorable to honest players as the steroid use was. But we all have our own code of conduct and standards, as I can see from this debate.

Think of the audacity of a guy like Bonds. A who gets jealous of the attention Sosa and McGwire were receiving, which was fueled by steroids, and decided those records should be his. So now HE was going to juice. Barry Bonds took steroids to intentionally assault and take over specific records to feed his own ego. He took steroids to manipulate the record books, lied about it for years, and irreparably harmed the game. If he ever gets in the Hall I'm through and I can't see why anyone would endorse his enshrinement. He's the face of the reason a lot of Americans turned their back on baseball and turned to the NFL.

What hogwash. baseball has not been irreperably harmed and a lot of Americans have not turned their backs on baseball and turned to the NFL. Baseball remains the most popular fan spectator sport for live action. The NFL has higher TV ratings but attendance at MLB games is about 4 times that of the NFL.

There is no noticeable backlash from the steroids era on interest in baseball.

However, even if you consider the NFL as tops with fans by any criteria, why haven't those same fans turned their backs on it due to the high level of steroid use historically (including by one team with four Lombardis in the 70's) and continued infractions today with all the testing that's done.

Bob, after reading Joe Posnanski's column, I think you're looking at the wrong stats for Edgar Martinez. Here's what he has to say about him, it's a pretty impressive validation of his HOF credentials:

From 1990 through 2001, 12 years, Edgar Martinez hit .321 and obeed .429*. Those are both so impressive, it’s hard to choose the more impressive between them. He won two batting titles, three on-base titles, led the league in runs, doubles, RBIs, times on base, OPS, OPS+ and runs created. His 1995 season was insane, one of the best in American League history: He created 161 runs in a 145-game season, the most per game in the AL since Mickey Mantle’s Triple Crown season. The guy could swat.

...

I’m voting for Martinez because I think he’s one of the best hitters in baseball history. True, he played DH, but that’s because the DH exists. If there had been no DH, they would have played him at third base and lived with the consequences, because he was that good a hitter. The biggest job of an every-day player is to help the team create runs, and few have done it better than Edgar.



309 HRs, 1,261 RBI, 312 BA. Career wise, those numbers rank 120th for HRs, 121st for RBIs, 95th for BA. A good one-dimensional player, but not, in my estimation, Hall worthy. -- Bob Smizik

I was not aware that sports writers who are retired could still vote. Wouldn't it limit the strength of perspective to not be on the road to see all of the players?


Hall of Fame voting should be far more narrow than it is and someone like myself, after being retired a certain period of time, should lose their vote. They don't. Worse, there are people who never covered baseball and don't know much about it who have votes mainly because they were accepted into membership in the Baseball Writers Association of America.
In effect, the baseball Hall electorate is a democracy and the football Hall electorate is the proverbial smoke-filled room. Both have flaws, but both work. -- Bob Smizik

By the way, the P-G ran a series several years ago about the etymology of steroid use as a "performance enhancer". It featured the weight-lifting community in York, Pa. and the lifters were given steroids by a doctor to determine their effects.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg...36-209.stm

Actually, the pill did not spurt muscles the way spinach did for Popeye. In the complex chemistry of the body, testosterone sends messages to muscle cells. In combination with a high protein diet and obsessive workouts, and if taken for a cycle of six weeks, Dianabol acted like a high-powered amino acid. In addition, it cut down the time March needed to recover from workouts, which meant he could lift more often and post more gains.



Now I'm no doctor or scientist and I acknowledge steroids and their relatives are more sophisticated these days, but I think it's obvious that their mere ingestion is only one component of being able to perform better athletically, but does not work on its own.

The series does continue by looking at the ramifications of use, physically and legally. I believe it to be worthwhile background to enhance understanding of the issue.

Dave Parker was the best player I ever saw who is not in the HOF. When Parker came up the year after Clemente died (the best player I ever saw, period) Parker seemed to be almost a comparable player. Whereas Clemente only had average power, Parker had the power but was not quite as good defensively. I agree with Bob that if Parker had not had a few dysfunctional years in the middle of his career, he'd be in already.

but I think it's obvious that their mere ingestion is only one component of being able to perform better athletically, but does not work on its own.

@Knute: the bottom line is that players who work hard and take steroids and other PEDs are going to perform better than those who work hard and don't take PED's. There is no disputing this. That's why they are banned.

couple things...

-"Parker is one of my all-time favorites, too. But just a bit below the line"
Even though there are players with less offense #s and gold gloves in, I understand where u feel that is not a good enough reason for Parker to be in. However, the HOF has already lowered the bar by putting these guys in. The Cobra belongs. I look at if for what it is. He will never be forgiven for 1980s drug scandal.

-how about Al Oliver? Ended up with almost 2900 hits I believe. If he DH'd 1 more year in the AL and got to 3000, he would have had to get in.

-comparing some of the more recent guys to #8. Wiliie had to play in Forbes field until age 30 and face the 1960s decade of some the best pitchers in MLB history. Clemente once said Forbes could have cost Stargell over 150 more long ones.

Thanks. Great post Bob. Probably one of the most interesting I have seen.

Let's also remove anyone from the ballot and from The Hall who ever took a cortisone shot the day of a game.

I always enjoy the annual Smizik HoF ballot blog posting. It's becoming a tradition. Very interesting Bob.

Some people here are still complaining about Blyleven's election.sixty shutouts-I repeat SIXTY shutouts.

Bob,

Many thanks for doing this column each year. I appreciate it because you have the strength to put your vote and logic out for public view.

I would disagree with you on Blyleven, but not on your current selections. Yes they used PEDs, probably with a wink and nod from MLB until the fire around them became too hot!

The criteria for election are spelled out in the rules for voting:
5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

The rules don't say, "Assume a player is OK in all these areas if we put them up for a vote." Otherwise why have voters at all? Voters are supposed to make the assessment that a player fulfills the expectations. How can you possibly assess a known steroid user as having the requisite integrity, sportsmanship, and character? Those three components are half of the given criteria to be considered. For that matter, how can you fairly judge a steroid user's ability?
As for those you judge unworthy for election, I would make the case for Walker. In many respects he had a Clemente like career, albeit shorter. He won 3 batting titles and 7 Gold Gloves, and had an MVP season. While he certainly didn't compile anything approaching 3000 hits he had far more home runs. I think outfield defense, especially corner outfield defense, is undervalued in our stat driven era.

I am certain it is just a typo, but Juan Gonzales' OPS was not 1.004, but rather .904. I am surprised it hasn't been fixed, because citing an OPS of 1.004 as good, but not good enough, is ludicrous. Had Juan Gone finished with a 1.004 OPS, he would rank 8th all-time and would most certainly be deserving of the Hall of Fame. I have tremendous respect for how you deal with the steroid/HOF issue. It is tremendously wishy-washy of MLB, the HOF, and various members of the BBWAA to whine about how hard it is to vote on this issue. It isn't hard. All one needs to do is take a stance, whatever that stance may be, and vote accordingly. You have done so. Bravo. But I do disagree with you lumping Edgar Martinez with the dregs of the ballot. He deserves at least some real scrutiny. I would vote for him, clearly you would not. Fair enough, but I think he is more deserving than being lumped in with Jeromy Burnitz.