2013 MLB Hall of Fame Screechfest

I don't know yet.

I know that's a really unsatisfactory answer, but I explained it early in the thread, and it's the one I'm sticking with.

 

Close enough that I'm not going to quibble, I'll put it that way.

 

Because what happened today was a fucking joke, Dick. The thing about this era is no one knows who did and didn't use. Oh sure, there's suspicions as to who did, but what happens if you leave someone out because you suspect they used and it turns out they didn't?

Ty Cobb beat the crap out of people.
Babe Ruth partied every night and drank an awful lot.
Mickey Mantle came to the ballpark hung over several times, I'm sure.
The players in the 1960s and 1970s used greenies, even LSD (Dock Ellis)...

 

At least in the case of Bonds and Clemens, there's a pretty strong narrative and a lot of documentation about it. Could all be wrong, I suppose, but I for one trust "Game of Shadows" and all the reporting about the Clemens-McNamee connection.

 

Why is it such a joke now, but not last year? Or the year before that? Where was the outrage then? Was Barry Larkin's induction such a sedative for the masses that no one noticed the writing on the wall?

 

Absolutely. Two of the greatest players in baseball history and they belong in the Hall.

 

In a 13-year career, a pitcher goes 192-111 with a 3.06 ERA. He wins three Cy Young Awards.

Is he a Hall of Famer?

 

1) It's been a joke for quite awhile. There's a reason this thread got the preemptive "screechfest" title.

2) This year is especially jokelike because of the confluence of an extremely strong ballot year and the lack of anyone making the cut.

 

Hell yes. (He also was an MVP in that time.)

 

That's not a lot to judge by, but probably.

 

I've always felt similarly. The whole point is whether or not someone is HOF-worthy, not whether they're first- or second- or whatever-ballot material. Were I a voter (and I never have been nor will I ever be), if I said no to a player once, I'd say no forever.

 

But like you said yourself, most of the electorate, on most candidates, got it right. Is the real problem the high threshold for election? Is 75 percent too high?

Other than the PED guys, which snub really gets your blood boiling here? Because I just don't see one.