I have the impression after scanning various websites that regardless of who sat on a board to elect players into the Hall of Fame, there would always be someone undeservedly left out. It seems like an inevitable consequence of voting procedures.

The alternative solution based on criteria strikes me as very robotic and boring...The Hall of Fame is maybe designed to spawn debates about who should be in and who shouldn't be in. It's ironic that someone like Blyleven has probably earned more notoriety for not being elected than he would have if he was elected. 60 career shutouts and not being elected seems more amazing than 60 career shutouts and being elected.

Many writers hold first-ballot votes to a higher standard than subsequent votes, believing only what they perceive to be the elite to be worthy of a vote on their first year of eligibility.   Hey, don't shoot the messenger.  Jayson Stark - hardly an anti-establishment stathead -- has made an impassioned plea for Tim Raines, and that's a good sign for the future.

Henderson has always claimed that his daily workout regimen consisted of 1,000 push-ups, 1,000 sit-ups and running.  I haven't heard from or read about anyone who doubted his claims. 

Henderson has always claimed that his daily workout regimen consisted of 1,000 push-ups, 1,000 sit-ups and running.

I thought this was Hershel Walker?

I don't think the BBWAA does nearly as good a job as it should. You're right in that there's no excuse for some of these votes, especially given the internet and availability of stats. However, I just meant that some people go too far in their criticism of the BBWAA and that many (but by no means all) of the egregious selections came during the days when the Veterans Committee was stacked with Frankie Frisch and his buddies. The VC's selections still aren't great, but the BBWAA has made only a few marginal selections over the past decade and a half.

For an example what I mean about people giving the BBWAA too little credit, see John's comment that is was a "shock" that Raines cracked 20% and that he was worried he'd miss the 5% barrier. The low vote total is worrying, but I do attribute part of that to the "not a first timer" syndrome and think that Raines' vote total will slowly work it's way upwards over the years.

However, the essence of your point is right and I don't want to sound charitable towards the BBWAA. Nowadays, there is no excuse not to be 100% accurate ("accurate" will vary depending on whether you're a big or small Hall guy and so forth, but I mean accurate in the sense that there's no excuse not to realize that Tim Raines is a better player than Jim Rice and that Rice is indistinguishable from a dozen other corner outfielders not in the Hall). The fact that people are voting for Rice over Raines, Morris over Blyleven, Concepcion over Trammell and Smith over either of those 3 is unfortunate, to say the least.

I thought this was Hershel Walker?

It certainly was Hershel.   I haven't heard the Rickey claim before.  Though I'm not refuting it.

Interesting quote from Joe Posnanski via Baseball Analysts:

For instance, what (if) I told you there was a player who, over a 12-year period, led all of baseball in home runs and RBIs? I’m talking all of baseball. Even Rice did not do that. And what if I further told you this guy played center field for much of his career, he stole more than 200 bases (31 in his best season) and hit one of the three most famous home runs in baseball history. That guy would be a SURE Hall of Famer, wouldn’t he?

Whoops, I attributed Herschel Walker's "1,000" quote to Rickey.  But my memory isn't all bad -- these two articles summarize the gist of his training program (and feature plenty of additional always-entertaining quotes from the SB king himself).

Maybe a Philly reporter who really hated the major in '93?

And here I thought you were referencing Ralph "The Major" Houk, who managed Todd's dad for eight years ...

Here's Goose on Clemens!

http://www.thestar.com/Sports/article/292667

High hard one in tight.

Always good to hear from a couple of players with some credentials, far too few are standing up and denouncing steriods.

A little OT, but where are those people insinuating racism against Barry Bonds?  Looks like Roger is getting it just as rough.

where are those people insinuating racism against Barry Bonds?  Looks like Roger is getting it just as rough.where are those people insinuating racism against Barry Bonds?  Looks like Roger is getting it just as rough.

I'd still argue that there is a distinction in the way Bonds and Clemens have been treated. Bonds was hearing all the steroid talk long before BALCO and Greg Anderson become publically known ("How can a player so old do what he's doing? Just look how big he's gotten."). While there have long been hushed rumours about Clemens and steroids, it is only the accusations made in the Mitchell report that are now more widely swaying public opinion. Absent the Mitchell report, public vilification of Clemens would be nowhere near that of Bonds.

Now, whether Bonds' treatment is racially based, that's a difficult call to make. Working against Bonds (above and beyond possible matters of racial discrimination) are his entirely unendearing crotchety public personality and the fact that he deigned to pursue and surpass the single most vaunted statistic in all of pro sports.

Still, it is odd that a 36-year old Bonds hitting 73 homeruns attracted one reaction while a 42-year old Clemens throwing 211 innings with a 1.87 ERA in a hitter's park attracted an entirely different one. One was a cheater. The other was a product of his work ethic.

• He's a pitcher. The perception (though clearly untrue) is that only hitters use and benefit from performance enhancing drugs.
• He didn't really change. While Bonds obviously bulked up and made a huge increase in power, Clemens was pretty much the same: A big, hard-throwing guy who struck lots of batters out. It's not like Greg Maddux suddenly started leading the league in strikeouts.
  
• He had company. Randy Johnson was doing much the same thing as Clemens, and I haven't heard his name linked to steroids at all. Or for a historical precedent, just look at what Nolan Ryan did in his forties. When you've got elite, one-in-billion athletes, they don't always follow the expected career path.
• PR: While Bonds was pretty no-comment about the steroid accusations, Clemens came right out with a denial.
  

I'd love it if more would just say it the way Goose did. Sadly, if a guy denies he is lying (see Clemens), if he states he did he is scum (see Canseco & Giambi) or not admitting to enough (see Petitte, torn apart in the NY press). Talk about screwed no matter what eh? And all it takes is one trainer stating something happened to cause it.

You think so?  Giambi and Canseco have come out of this whole mess with their reputations more intact than the rest of these guys.  Giambi in particular, because Jose was just seen as chasing after the money and being a rat.