JcHc3in1

Maddux
Mussina
Schilling
Glavine
Bonds - He was a HOFer by 1998 IMO
Thomas
Edgar
Bagwell
Piazza
Trammell
 

Care to explain why?

There are more than ten that I think are deserving, but I'll go with the following:
 
Jeff Bagwell
Craig Biggio
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Tom Glavine
Greg Maddux
Mike Mussina
Mike Piazza
Curt Schilling
Frank Thomas
 
I'd like to vote for Edgar Martinez, Larry Walker, Tim Raines, Alan Trammell and Lou Whitaker as well, but alas.

I rarely go on a rant here, but this year's Hall of Fame selection really irritates me. 2014 will go down as the year the Hall of Fame, Baseball Writers, and the various selection committees were fully revealed as hypocrites and the election/selection process as nothing more than a grand farce. 
 
Tony LaRussa has already been elected unanimously by the expansion era committee. Looking at the final stats of LaRussa's managerial career he is certainly a Hall of Fame manager. But using the logic that currently prevails, he should never be enshrined in Cooperstown. Why? LaRussa's Hall of Fame credentials were accumulated managing some of the biggest 'roid users of the entire era. The players that played for him that put up amazing numbers and won hundreds of games that make LaRussa's resume shine will never be in the Hall because the self righteous, guardians of the game will never elect them. However, the man who managed them is allowed in at the first opportunity. Did LaRussa know about the steroid use of Cancesco, McGwire, and the rest of the players? He claims he didn't and voters give him the benefit of the doubt. Really?!?! LaRussa is a lawyer, a bright guy, and yet he had no clue of the rampant PED use going on in his clubhouse?  I believe LaRussa is a liar, but the hypocrisy is the electors refuse to give players like Jeff Bagwell and Mike Piazza the same benefit of the doubt they are giving LaRussa. 
 
By all accounts Tom Glavine is going to be a first ballot Hall of Famer. He will stand there on induction day and proudly accept his enshrinement while writers and purists applaud that he did it the "right way" in an era that was filled with PED use. What a joke. Glavine should be put in the same category as Bonds and Clemens because he is just as much of a participant in the issues of the PED era as any of the juiced up players. It comes down to this legal definition of  accessory:
 
Accessory: contributing to or aiding in the commission of a crime. One who, without being present at the commission of an offense, becomes guilty of such offense, not as a chief actor, but as a participant, as by command, advice, instigation, or concealment; either before or after the fact or commission.
 
Glavine was a high ranking member of the Players Association who was very vocal against instituting any drug testing. He wasn't the only player that resisted but he was one of the most outspoken and, as a leader in the MLBPA, he had a great deal of influence. While Glavine continued to stand on his principles, the PED era continued. If the PED users are considered to have committed "crimes" against baseball then Tom Glavine should be seen as an accessory to these crimes and viewed in the same light as Bonds and Clemens and kept out of the Hall of Fame. 

I am not really qualified to go over the whole list but Maddux and Thomas are no brainers for me.

Ummm ok

Even Lou Whitaker isn't in favor of Morris --> http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140105/SPORTS0104/301050031#ixzz2pZcwUmfb

Like Stradling, don't remember exactly who I voted for in the poll, but it was a full 10.
Bagwell
Biggio
Bonds
Clemens
Glavin
Maddux
McGwire
Piazza
Smith
Trammel

The list looked different. Haha. When you changed the format I struggled to remember everyone I picked. But great job strengthening your case Alan Trammel in the last 24 hours.

A lot must have happened in 1 day. Sorry Biggio and Morris.

One of the bigger issues with the HOF voting is overrating "milestones".
You can be a great pitcher but if you don't get at least 200 wins, then your chances are slim to get in.
You can be a great all around player but if you don't hit 400 HR or steal 400 bases, you don't get any recognition.
It will be nice when some of the newer writers like the guys from Fangraphs and Baseball Prospectus get their chance to vote. Right now, there aren't a whole lot of writers who are worthy of determining a players' worth.

There are 570 ballots which is a good sample size. The problem is who gets to vote. Once a writer is granted access, they have it forever. There are voters that used to cover sports and now write for Home & Garden. But they still get a HOF ballot.

I have never understood those who say that they will never vote for a guy in his first year of eligibility. He doesn't suddenly become more worthy the second time around.
 
At first I was completely against voting for those tied to steroids. I then began to think that there were probably far more players using than we will ever know about, and baseball made no apparent effort to remove PEDs from the game. Many of the players these guys were competing against were also juicing, but since they aren't HOF candidates that doesn't seem to matter.
 
I suppose that I should have added Bonds, McGwire and Clemens to my ballot.

Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Greg Maddux
Edgar Martinez
Mike Mussina
Mike Piazza
Tim Raines
Curt Schilling
Frank Thomas
Alan Trammell
 
There are probably at least five or six guys who are also deserving but who can't make the cut with a maximum of ten votes. The BBWAA has really ****ed this all up. Watch them not elect anyone again this year, even with almost 20 deserving candidates. I wonder what it would take to get the HoF to throw them out and find a new voting body that will actually elect people...

Last I checked, 13 is greater than 10. I'll just omit the roid users to get it down to 10 picks

Bonds, Clemens, Mussina, Thomas, Raines, Martinez, Maddux, Biggio, Glavine, Bagwell.
Piazza would be my 11th guy.

So when does the Chuck Finley for the HOF campaign start?  Fin had a better ERA+, struck out more batters in about 800 fewer innings and oh yeah -- he posted a higher WAR over that time too, 55.9.

His masquerading as a catcher is overstated by people who want to rip him.  Defensively he had his struggles throwing, but that's only partially on him -- his staffs were famous for long windups and being slow to the plate while with the Dodgers.  A great deal of his leading his leagues in some negative counting stats defensively also had to do with the reality he was typically in the top 3 for games played at C.   
Mike Piazza ended his career with a plus dWar, and 143 OPS+ as a catcher.  If the HOF has room for Paul Molitor there is no viable argument that can be made for not including a guy like Piazza.  

But but but Jack Morris "pitched to the score" better than anybody in the history of the game!

Kent hit more HRs -- and HRs are popular.  Bobby Grich could play defense, hit for power and got on base -- also unlike Jeff Kent he didn't magically go from a slightly above league average hitter through his age 30 season to a complete offensive monster at age 30 in 1998 while playing alongside of Barry Bonds.  Yeah, that's not curious at all.
 
For their careers, Kent put up 55.2  bWAR (17th all time), in 2298 games.  Grich 71.0 bWAR (7th all time) in 2008 games.   To say that Bobby Grich was a world better player is selling Bobby Grich short.   There are 19 2B in the HOF -- with an average of 69.5 bWAR.  Bobby Grich's HOF case is one of the strongest out there -- unfortunately the voters are dullards.

I really don't agree with Morris being deserving. 
 
Player A career fWAR: 52.7
Player B career fWAR: 53.3
 
Player A is Jack Morris. Player B is Kevin Appier. 
 
Morris was a nice pitcher but he isn't HOF material. His one great World Series is really making him a more popular candidate. 

Kent played in an offense era, while Grich was from the more traditional times of the 1970s through mid 1980s. To me, Grich was the better all around player. Better glove, clutch hitter, produced a pair of 30 HR seasons and led the AL in HRs in strike shortened 1981, and was a definate clubhouse positive.

I'd definitely pick Schilling and Mussina. Both guys had arguably better careers then Glavine and the consensus is Glavine is a no doubt Hall of Famer.

As much as I can't stand Bonds and as much as I know he wont get in any time soon I still have to vote for him.  His stats may have been aided by roids, but his greatness is still undeniable.  His career would still have been awesome without any help at all.
 
(of course, this is why his use of roids is that much more frustrating to me)

Two reasons, I think. One, McGriff's peak--1988-94--was right before era of inflated hitting numbers (1994-2009) got rolling, so he only had one season, 1994, of era-inflated stats, and that was a strike-shortened season. In 1995 he was 31 years old and starting to decline, so his numbers then and previously looked only decent compared to the stars who were peaking at the right time to catch the wave. Also, he finished with 493 HR with a lot of his career occurring the most inflated HR era in baseball history. It is kind of silly, but even if he had gotten 7 more HR there would be more serious conversation about his candidacy.
 
Secondly, he's a classic borderline case: 57.2 fWAR. But more so, he was good to very good for a long period of time. Hall of Fame voters seem more impressed by players who have a higher peak, even if their plateau is shorter (e.g. Jim Rice, 50.8 WAR). Although someone like Reggie Smith (64.6 fWAR) receives no love, probably because voters don't well account for the fact he played much of his career in an era--the late 60s and early 70s--that was a low run-scoring context.
 
I could see McGriff becoming a sleeper case in a couple decades once the hullabaloo about steroids has settled down. If people become more accepting, he might not get voted in, but if people remain unaccepting then he might be voted in because he was perceived of as a clean player in an un-clean era.