It's rare that I recommend a piece from Buster Olney but if you have espn insider, this is a good read.

i would not induct the definite steroids guys...i would not vote for bagwell...he sure looked like a user...i would vote for piazza because evidence is basically rumour..i would also vote for :
   pedro
   johnson
   biggio
   raines

P.S. - Piazza was a truly awful catcher.  I've never understood how people could argue that Edgar Martinez shouldn't be in because he didn't play the field, while Piazza should be in even though he made his team worse for him being in the field.

I still have a hard time wrapping my head around Biggio as a Hall of Famer.  Was there ever a point in his career where he was the best second baseman in baseball?  If you barely outpace Ray Durham stats-wise, I'm not sure you're a Hall of Famer.

Posted by dahsdebater on 12/4/2014 9:46:00 PM (view original):
How does Bagwell "look like a user" but Piazza not?  This is why I think the voters who want to keep all the "steroids guys" out are just absurd - the criteria they resort to are laughable bullshit.  Who's to say that Pedro and Randy Johnson never used anything?  It's definitely not normal for fastball guys to pitch to age 45, you don't think that's at least marginally suspicious in the era of rampant PED use?

Big Bags:



Small Bags:



In short, after testing began, he was one of those guys who came to ST 20-30 lbs lighter talking about how he changed his diet. 

Posted by dahsdebater on 12/4/2014 8:21:00 PM (view original):
Of course you would like that...

Honestly, I don't buy the ballot crowding.  I still agree with his general premise that it doesn't make sense to limit the number of players you can vote for, but instead should allow each player to be evaluated on his own merits.  But there are exactly 10 guys I want to vote for this year.  I don't think Mussina, Smoltz, or Schilling is a HOF.  Their careers line up closely in time with Pedro, Maddux, Clemens, and Randy Johnson.  The only one of the first 3 who I think compares even remotely to those latter 4 is Schilling, and maybe he deserves to get in.  But really, the 6th best starter of the same vintage isn't a HOF.  There hasn't been that kind of density of HOF pitchers since the deadball era, and I think you would agree that too many of those deadballers got in because the standards had changed and they weren't being evaluated properly.  I think we're having something of the opposite effect here: the standards changed again, and we're evaluating guys relative to their steroid-era peers, which is appropriate.  But, in an era with more total offense, the numbers are bigger, which means the variance is bigger too.  Maybe you need a better ERA+ to merit HOF consideration than you would in a lower-variance era.  I just have a really hard time believing that there are 8 guys (if you throw in Glavine) who all pitched at virtually the same time that belong in the Hall.

 But really, the 6th best starter of the same vintage isn't a HOF.

Why not? Compared to all pitchers, Mussina and Schilling (less so Smoltz), are qualified for the Hall of Fame. They are both probably better than Glavine. Clemens/Johnson/Maddux are probably three of the best 6 or 7 pitchers of all time. I think Clemens has a case for #1 or #2.

we're evaluating guys relative to their steroid-era peers, which is appropriate.  But, in an era with more total offense, the numbers are bigger, which means the variance is bigger too. 

I'm having a hard time reconciling that. Are you saying that there were so many good hitters scoring so many runs that, relative the rest of history, these are pitchers we would otherwise considered just "good?"

 just have a really hard time believing that there are 8 guys (if you throw in Glavine) who all pitched at virtually the same time that belong in the Hall.

I don't think it's that weird. The 7 we're talking about pitched across a 25 year period. I ran a report for pitchers that pitched at least 2000 innings from 1949-1974 and counted eight Hall of Famers, and it doesn't include guys like Lemon, Carlton, Niekro and Seaver, who overlap but I would consider belonging to a different era.

The 8 I counted:

Gibson
Ford
Koufax
Marichal
Bunning
Drysdale
Perry
Spahn

Posted by examinerebb on 12/5/2014 12:58:00 PM (view original):
I still have a hard time wrapping my head around Biggio as a Hall of Famer.  Was there ever a point in his career where he was the best second baseman in baseball?  If you barely outpace Ray Durham stats-wise, I'm not sure you're a Hall of Famer.

So you wouldn't vote for Jeter either?

Based on what criteria from the post you quoted?  Do you have an example of a SS who put up comparable stats per season in the same era, but received 0 HOF votes when he was on the ballot?  Or that Jeter was never the best SS in baseball during his career?

Posted by examinerebb on 12/5/2014 2:43:00 PM (view original):
Based on what criteria from the post you quoted?  Do you have an example of a SS who put up comparable stats per season in the same era, but received 0 HOF votes when he was on the ballot?  Or that Jeter was never the best SS in baseball during his career?

My criteria is that Jeter and Biggio were incredibly similar players. It makes sense that someone who is anti-Biggio would also be anti-Jeter.

I guess you're allowed to consider whatever you want when deciding if you think someone is a hall of famer. Based on their on field performance, Jeter and Biggio are very, very similar. That's all I really consider. 

And there were many years (most of his career) where Jeter was not the best SS in baseball.

Agreed. My argument was more in regards to Biggio, where I can't remember EVER thinking that he was the best 2B in baseball.