Sports writer who won't vote for Hall of Fame candidates

[cjclong]

Can anyone give me the name of the sports writer who said that he will refuse to vote for any baseball Hall of Fame candidates who played during the PED era? I would like to know who he is and where he works. To vote against a player who was clean like Marino Rivera because he played during an era when some others cheated is ridiculous. In fact, he ought to give the players who didn't take PED's more credit. If anyone can give me this information I would appreciate it.

[cfern023]

Murray ChASS

He's holding onto his vote out of spite, and the person next up to have the vote he doesn't like.

[cfern023]

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/01/02/maury-chass-is-keeping-his-hall-of-fame-vote-to-spite-me-specifically/

[cjclong]

Thank you for the information, I appreciate it. Does the guy have any contact information.

[Roady]

The baseball HOF has become such a joke in the last 20-30 years what difference does it make?
The hall of good players should be it's name.
It took Duke Snider, The Duke of Flatbush, what 11 or 12 years to get elected.
Many of the players elected like Ozzie Smith and Barry Larkin don't belong. And the veterans committee is putting everyone half decent in.
It's a joke.

[helf35]

I believe Larkin is a HOF'er. Silver Sluggers, Gold Gloves and an MVP. He also has the All Star nods. He doesn't have any sexy milestone numbers but he was one of the most complete SS in the game. Ozzie on the other hand was a one trick pony but he did have 13 gold gloves and 15 all star nods. Personally I think Ozzie should have been a year 15 candidate at best.

[Sportskansascity]

I don't understand how you say Ozzie Smith shouldn't get in the hall of fame? Who else doesn't belong Roady? I am always interested in people's perspectives when it comes to who should or shouldn't be in the hall of fame.

[ShaimOnYou]

Murray ChASS should have his voting privileges revoked permanently.

Why infect the honor of voting for a potential HOF'er by injecting an opinionated loser into the mix who has verbally displayed more than enough evidence he's not worthy of the task?

Even though I agree with keeping known cheaters out, there has to be a rational thought in determining fairness with regards to the "era" and the players who played the game right. Murray's position is just plain wrong, amateurish.

[Roady]

I don't understand how you say Ozzie Smith shouldn't get in the hall of fame? Who else doesn't belong Roady? I am always interested in people's perspectives when it comes to who should or shouldn't be in the hall of fame.

Defensive much? Got a large Ozzie collection?

Ozzie Smith spent 19 years in MLB and still only collected 2460 hits, only 793 RBI, a pathetic .262 batting average, and only 1257 runs scored despite actually stealing 580 bases. Pathetic.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/smithoz01.shtml

His career on-base percentage is .337 and slugging percentage is .327.
Pathetic

Ozzie's career fielding percentage is .978. Not as great as everyone "remembers". Was he better than most in his day, yes. Is .978 the best ever? No Right now he is ranked 13th on the all time list. That is good but not the best like people want to believe. http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/fielding_perc_ss_career.shtml

Allan Trammell was trice the player Ozzie was. And I don't own anything of Trammells in case you are wondering. Not even a Tigers fan.

[Sportskansascity]

Not a cardinals fan at all, and honestly only have a few items signed by him. I just like hearing different peoples perspective on the hall of game. I also enjoy people using the term "pathetic" when talking about certain stats. If you ask every single current hall of famer if they believe Ozzie should be in the hall of fame, well over 90% would say yes. Greater than the 75% that is required by writers vote. If you're going to say that he shouldn't be in, I'm guessing you'll say brooks robinson doesn't deserve to be either???? He didn't have the 3,000 hits or 500 homeruns. How about Sandy Koufax??? He didn't win 300 games? I find it funny to hear a guy who has no big league experience (correct me if I'm wrong) talk about any hall of famer's stats as pathetic.

[Roady]

And I find it funny that you can't accept others have a different opinion than your own.
Pathetic

[Sportskansascity]

I accept you Roady :). Nothing personal I just like hearing peoples perspectives on why or why not people should be in the hall of fame.

[Roady]

I accept you Roady :). Nothing personal I just like hearing peoples perspectives on why or why not people should be in the hall of fame.

I appreciate that. We all have opinions and we all believe we are right. I always try to be the type of person who will change his mind if evidence supporting another opinion outweighs my own.
I remember Ozzie well during his playing days. And I remember the fans cringing when he came to the plate.

But the fans loved him and that means a lot more than the HOF. :)

[chakes89]

Defensive much? Got a large Ozzie collection?

Ozzie Smith spent 19 years in MLB and still only collected 2460 hits, only 793 RBI, a pathetic .262 batting average, and only 1257 runs scored despite actually stealing 580 bases. Pathetic.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/smithoz01.shtml

His career on-base percentage is .337 and slugging percentage is .327.
Pathetic

Ozzie's career fielding percentage is .978. Not as great as everyone "remembers". Was he better than most in his day, yes. Is .978 the best ever? No Right now he is ranked 13th on the all time list. That is good but not the best like people want to believe. http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/fielding_perc_ss_career.shtml

Allan Trammell was trice the player Ozzie was. And I don't own anything of Trammells in case you are wondering. Not even a Tigers fan.

But he did back flips!!!!

[beachpetrol]

But he did back flips!!!!
...and he's a Wizard. If it weren't for the LOTR films, he wouldn't be in the Hall.

[commando]

A player with fifteen All-Star Games and thirteen Gold Gloves should be in the Hall of Fame, period. You can say another player should have won the GG or AS spot any given year, but this is impressive. Thirteen Gold Gloves is the most by a shortstop, and fifteen All-Star Teams is second most for shortstops, behind Cal Ripken Jr.

[Roady]

A player with fifteen All-Star Games and thirteen Gold Gloves should be in the Hall of Fame, period. You can say another player should have won the GG or AS spot any given year, but this is impressive. Thirteen Gold Gloves is the most by a shortstop, and fifteen All-Star Teams is second most for shortstops, behind Cal Ripken Jr.

Gold gloves are one thing but All Star Games should not be a basis for the HOF. It is a popularity contest mostly.

[Hoosier39]

Gold gloves are one thing but All Star Games should not be a basis for the HOF. It is a popularity contest mostly.

Yep! I think it's funny when it's ballot time and the sports guys give their reasoning of who should and shouldn't get it and bring up the number of All Star appearances. I'd say starting in the 90's is when it became a popularity contest. And I don't know when it was, probably 10 yrs ago or so, but having one rep for each team is a joke. So no, the number of AS appearances really don't mean much to me if it's from the last 20-25 yrs.

GG's on the other hand, I'm ok with having those in the discussion.

[commando]

Well, it's nice to hear that the Gold Glove awards might mean something. Is it safe to say that winning thirteen of them over a thirteen-year period means a player was a dominant fielder during this time? Is it also safe to say that the shortstop position is one of the more important positions in baseball when it comes to fielding skills?

[Roady]

It is safe to say that Ozzie Smith was one of the better fielding shortstops of his day.
It is not safe to say that shortstop is one of the more important positions in MLB. Just as important as catcher? More important than 2nd base? More than center field or third base? The historical numbers do not back that up.
Does the ss always have more balls hit his way in a game than the 2nd baseman or the center fielder? Does a good first baseman who can catch nearly everything that is thrown at him less valuable than a ss who has a quick step? Is a good ss better or more important than an outfielder who can cover ground to catch a ball that others would miss?

It is nearly impossible to measure the importance of one defensive position over another defensive position. It all depends on how good the player plays that position.

If I had to pick one defensive position player who could affect the outcome of game more than any other I would pick the catcher.

If you can prove to me that over the last 100+ years that the ss has been involved in more plays than any other position that has affected the outcome of games then I am all ears. I would guess the first baseman is involved in more plays than any other player in baseball. But first basemen are supposed to be slow and lumbering aren't they. Not very important at all. Funny how they are so important to nearly every play.

Opening the door to Cooperstown to one trick ponies like Ozzie leaves the door wide open for others who excelled at defense and defense alone. Or maybe only hit HR's and nothing else. Or only stole bases like Vince Coleman. After all didn't those guys affect the outcome of the games by excelling at one thing?

When Andruw Jones comes up for a vote, arguably the best outfielder of his generation with a ton of those gold gloves you mentioned, there will be those who will say he does not belong in the HOF. Despite having better numbers in almost all offensive categories than Ozzie Smith.

The door is opened and the HOF is watered down as a result.

[commando]

That's a great response, Roady... You're one of my favorite posters here.

This may be slightly off topic, but I have a feeling that many of the "vintage" Hall of Fame players before our time were shaped over time to look like mythical legends, but in reality were great -- but very human -- players. The worst offender here is NFL Films, which really did a great job of making it seem like Joe Namath, Y.A. Tittle and Johnny Unitas were supermen who could do nothing wrong. If you go back and watch the unedited games featuring these legends, you'd see just how human these guys really were on any given day!

So we may disagree on the Ozzie Smith thing, but it's nothing anyone will lose sleep over. You have shaped your opinion on solid talking points, and I'm happy to read the things you write.

[Roady]

I appreciate that commando, I really do.

And I respect your opinion and anyone else's too.

[ShaimOnYou]

Opening the door to Cooperstown to one trick ponies like Ozzie leaves the door wide open for others who excelled at defense and defense alone.

When Andruw Jones comes up for a vote, arguably the best outfielder of his generation with a ton of those gold gloves you mentioned, there will be those who will say he does not belong in the HOF. Despite having better numbers in almost all offensive categories than Ozzie Smith.

The door is opened and the HOF is watered down as a result.

So I'm guessing you don't believe Bill Mazeroski belongs in the Hall either. Great fielding second baseman, but couldn't hit a lick until he had his biggest at-bat of his career in 1960. Fortunately for him (and Ozzie) they look at things other than just numbers to vote on their fate. Team leadership, clubhouse value (camaraderie) do carry value in the minds of the voters. And winning a World Series with a bat doesn't hurt. I remember Ozzie Smith hitting a devastating bomb against the Dodgers in the play-offs. These guys were ballers. In my opinion, they belong.

In regards to Andruw Jones, he was his own worst enemy. He got tangled up with porn stars, got lazy, and as could be predicted, his numbers fell off the cliff. Then he started team jumping and the bad part of that is because it was out of need, not his own personal desire. No one wanted him anymore. He destroyed his own career, his own legacy. He could have been a lock for the Hall, a 500 home run member, and as mentioned he was loaded in defensive ability. But when you look at the way his career drifted off into the oblivion, it is a big question mark as to whether he truly possesses the attributes of a HOF. I think he falls short based on his WHOLE career, and that's a shame. He didn't "finish".

[Roady]

So I'm guessing you don't believe Bill Mazeroski belongs in the Hall either. Great fielding second baseman, but couldn't hit a lick until he had his biggest at-bat of his career in 1960. Fortunately for him (and Ozzie) they look at things other than just numbers to vote on their fate. Team leadership, clubhouse value (camaraderie) do carry value in the minds of the voters. And winning a World Series with a bat doesn't hurt. I remember Ozzie Smith hitting a devastating bomb against the Dodgers in the play-offs. These guys were ballers. In my opinion, they belong.

In regards to Andruw Jones, he was his own worst enemy. He got tangled up with porn stars, got lazy, and as could be predicted, his numbers fell off the cliff. Then he started team jumping and the bad part of that is because it was out of need, not his own personal desire. No one wanted him anymore. He destroyed his own career, his own legacy. He could have been a lock for the Hall, a 500 home run member, and as mentioned he was loaded in defensive ability. But when you look at the way his career drifted off into the oblivion, it is a big question mark as to whether he truly possesses the attributes of a HOF. I think he falls short based on his WHOLE career, and that's a shame. He didn't "finish".
Heres one for you. Ron Santo doesn't belong either. Just put in appease Cubs fans. He wasn't that good. And while on the subject of Cubs, Ryne Sandberg doesn't belong either.
Now go crazy and cry a little because someone disagrees with you if you want to.

[Roady]

Oh, forgot the smiley face. Would hate to really hurt someones feelings.
Here you go, ;)

[Hoosier39]

What about those that have good hardware and good numbers, but will be penalized because they stayed around too long? Yes, I'm talking about Omar Vizquel. He will be interesting when his time comes.

As for Jones, I don't think he's a HOF'er, but he could've been. I also think they will put into consideration his Japanese career numbers, but just a little. That might help his cause some, and ultimately he could still be playing when his name first appears on the ballot.

[Sportskansascity]

Vizquel should be in hall of fame, just as Ozzie, Sandberg, and Santo deserve to be in Hall of Fame. If a person is in the hall of fame, they deserve to be in the hall of fame. It's not as if people are throwing darts and you get in by luck or chance

[ShaimOnYou]

Heres one for you. Ron Santo doesn't belong either. Just put in appease Cubs fans. He wasn't that good. And while on the subject of Cubs, Ryne Sandberg doesn't belong either.
Now go crazy and cry a little because someone disagrees with you if you want to.

Funny thing is, Roady, I agree with most of your comments. Sandberg and Santo were borderline and may very well fall into the "Very Good" Hall category as you put it. I would argue Steve Garvey belongs in the Hall since those guys are in.

I don't want to upset you, but at no point was I ever close to going crazy because we may have one or two areas of difference in opinion. In fact, my eyes never welled up either. I was only commenting on an additional player that would fall into your argument, apparently wrongfully expressing my agreement with you in your eyes. You seemed to take a tad offense to my comment and my quoting you. Relax, I enjoy the conversation on the subject and trust you do too. I am writing back because I don't want you to cry, or go crazy. I care.

Your friend, Chris

[Roady]

Funny thing is, Roady, I agree with most of your comments. Sandberg and Santo were borderline and may very well fall into the "Very Good" Hall category as you put it. I would argue Steve Garvey belongs in the Hall since those guys are in.

I don't want to upset you, but at no point was I ever close to going crazy because we may have one or two areas of difference in opinion. In fact, my eyes never welled up either. I was only commenting on an additional player that would fall into your argument, apparently wrongfully expressing my agreement with you in your eyes. You seemed to take a tad offense to my comment and my quoting you. Relax, I enjoy the conversation on the subject and trust you do too. I am writing back because I don't want you to cry, or go crazy. I care.

Your friend, Chris
Thanks Chris. Sorry I took offense. I took you post as confrontational and I clearly was mistaken.
I agree with you on Steve Garvey too. He should be in especially with some of the others that are in. Same with Alan Trammell.

[BU54CB]

Heres one for you. Ron Santo doesn't belong either. Just put in appease Cubs fans. He wasn't that good. And while on the subject of Cubs, Ryne Sandberg doesn't belong either.
Now go crazy and cry a little because someone disagrees with you if you want to.

Just curious, who was a better second baseman than Sandberg during that era? Also, what's your case for Alan Trammell?

[sox83cubs84]

Just curious, who was a better second baseman than Sandberg during that era? Also, what's your case for Alan Trammell?

Likewise, in the 1960s, aside from Brooks Robinson, who excelled at 3B more than Santo? Especially in terms of HR and RBI, in which Santo surpasses Brooksie? They both belong.

Dave Miedema

[earlywynnfan]

Roady, I take it you are one who believes the HOF is really the "Hall of Exclusive"? No room for great players, just the all-time legends? (I'm not knocking your view, just clarifying for myself.

Assuming Bill James is a fairly intelligent guy and moderately astute baseball historian, he has both Larkin and Sandberg barely out of the top-5 for their positions. What, may I ask, is your criteria for the HOF? Because if we only take the top-5 at each position, you're not having 100 players in the hall.

I love Trammell, but I'm not seeing how he's better than Larkin.

[Roady]

Just curious, who was a better second baseman than Sandberg during that era? Also, what's your case for Alan Trammell?

Didn't know the HOF was based on the best player in a 10 year period. I thought it was the best of all time.

[gingi79]

Didn't know the HOF was based on the best player in a 10 year period. I thought it was the best of all time.

Late 70's to early 80's, the very best player in the NL and maybe even MLB was Dale Murphy. If a sportswriter in 1983 questioned his HOF enshrinement, they'd have been laughed at. Then he played way too long and it killed his chances of being enshrined. Had he retired in 1985?

Sandy Koufax couldn't strike out Goofy to begin his career but had 6 seasons pitching at the top tier, he retired, HOF.

Roady is right, it should be the best of all time. But what happens when for 6 years a player is a superstar, HOF numbers and the best player in MLB with stats and rivals declaring you were the hardest out/ best player/ etc.

I'd rather enshrine a Dale Murphy or a Sandy Koufax for being the best for half a decade than some 23 year vet who hung on for a 3000th hit but was never more than a good ballplayer who lucked out to have a career with no injuries.

[BU54CB]

How do you determine if they are the greatest of all time, who do you compare them too? Do you compare Mike Schmidt to Babe Ruth or Gaylord Perry to Cy Young?

There has to be a combination of criteria used to determine a player's worthiness for the HOF, the era in which the athlete plays has to be taken into consideration. Comparing players from different eras to measure their greatness is almost impossible because the game changes so much, and that's true in any sport.