sfgdood
Long time member 
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Jan 10, 2013 13:20:06 GMT -5
I'm sorry but something has to be changed with this HOF voting. There were so many great candidates that got shafted this year that it's clear the voting process has to be reformed in order for it to regain any credibility. The way things are, it seems like voters just shut guys out if they have any kind of personal beef with them. It shouldnt have anything to do with anyone's personal character. If we want to do that, then we should think about removing guys like Ty Cobb and other racists who wanted to keep players of color out the game. Whatever you may think of Barry Bonds and Clemens personally, the fact remains they never got caught breaking baseball's rules. Never turned up a dirty blood test. Never got convicted of lying about it under oath...and they both had huge credentials before any steroid cloud emerged over the game. I also am a bit perplexed about this ferver against PED use when there are several busts in Cooperstown of players who reportedly used greenies and other stimulants...including the "real" HR king, Henry Aaron.
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jan 10, 2013 16:39:44 GMT -5
Well said, Randy.
However, I look no further than sports writers for moral judgement, who better to tell us what's right and wrong than a professional gossip monger that constantly looks through people's dirty laundry for that big story?
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jan 10, 2013 17:08:26 GMT -5
So we'll do what we do more and more often. If people can't meet the standards, just lower the standards. We're doing it in education, in government, in law enforcement, why shouldn't baseball follow along.
I'm curious as to who got shafted. Biggio? Piazza? Both probably should be HOFers, but not first ballot guys. If you're going to keep Cobb out because he was a racist, shouldn't Bonds be kept out for the same reason?
What anyone did before they started using is irrelevant. The fact that they chose to cheat is what should keep them out. The fact that Bonds cheated when he was already a sure bet HOFer borders on too stupid to live, much less be in the HOF.
Greenies are nothing like steroids. The effect of greenies is more of a placebo than anything else. Someone interviewed Ken Caminiti before he died about steroids and how he assessed their effects. He thought they improved every facet of his game. Power, speed, the whole thing. Again, these guys are not victims. They are not being punished. They chose to use. You weren't man enough to compete clean, at least be man enough to take the punishment.
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jan 10, 2013 17:11:58 GMT -5
I'm curious as to why people think the writers are the only ones that think the roid boys should be kept out. I've heard several HOFers say they won't show up at Cooperstown for induction weekend if these guys get in.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Jan 11, 2013 12:50:05 GMT -5
a couple of points. First as to the "competing clean" claim. If there was no actual failed blood test, then it is mere speculation on the part of the voters that a player did anything wrong. Now, they MIGHT be right and in the case of Bonds and Clemens there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that points to their usage. But in both cases, the federal government used the full weight of its prosecutorial power and was not able to secure a meaningful conviction that proves the point. To me, if MLB was not able to prove the usage took place to a sufficient degree of certainty as to warrant even a suspension--and then later the Feds could not prove the player frauded his way out of it--well then it seems ludicrous for voters to keep a man out of Cooperstown who otherwise has the unquestioned credentials to be there.
Secondly, and the more important point...the voters should not be the moral mediators of who deserves to be in the HOF. The question is should the HOF be where we celebrate baseball excellence or moral excellence? To me, whether a player has also been a "good boy" or not shouldnt enter into a voter's thought process. If he meets the baseball criteria for being voted in, then he should be voted in. I can see a possible exception for players who have been banned or suspended for cheating in some way...but if a player has not been punished in any way by MLB, be it for corking or PEDs or whatever, then his slate should be considered clean for HOF voting purposes.
~Dood
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Jan 11, 2013 13:12:33 GMT -5
Greenies are nothing like steroids. The effect of greenies is more of a placebo than anything else. Someone interviewed Ken Caminiti before he died about steroids and how he assessed their effects. He thought they improved every facet of his game. Power, speed, the whole thing
the question of the degree of performance enhancement can be debated. But that shouldnt be the issue for those who are staunch moralists against PED usage. If performance is enhanced, it is enhanced. And trust me, if there was not some other medical reason for taking the greenies, the only possible reason for taking them was to enhance performance in some way. Not nearly the racehorse freak show drugs Caminiti took, but still PEDs.
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jan 11, 2013 13:28:24 GMT -5
a couple of points. First as to the "competing clean" claim. If there was no actual failed blood test, then it is mere speculation on the part of the voters that a player did anything wrong. Now, they MIGHT be right and in the case of Bonds and Clemens there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that points to their usage. But in both cases, the federal government used the full weight of its prosecutorial power and was not able to secure a meaningful conviction that proves the point. To me, if MLB was not able to prove the usage took place to a sufficient degree of certainty as to warrant even a suspension--and then later the Feds could not prove the player frauded his way out of it--well then it seems ludicrous for voters to keep a man out of Cooperstown who otherwise has the unquestioned credentials to be there. Allen- In Clemens' case, people testified under oath that he used, and he has since confessed. Bonds? If the obvious physical changes weren't enough, you have a guy who went to jail rather than testify. If Bonds didn't use why would Anderson do that? If you really don't think either player used, you are just deceiving yourself. Secondly, and the more important point...the voters should not be the moral mediators of who deserves to be in the HOF. Allen- Actually, they have been entrusted with just that task, and a criteria has been set forth for them to follow that includes a character clause. Disagree with their decisions if you like, but don't say it's not their job. The question is should the HOF be where we celebrate baseball excellence or moral excellence? To me, whether a player has also been a "good boy" or not shouldnt enter into a voter's thought process. If he meets the baseball criteria for being voted in, then he should be voted in. Allen- Two things. Lack of moral excellence brought about the baseball excellence, and their's a difference between perhaps being a drunk, and cheating the game. I can see a possible exception for players who have been banned or suspended for cheating in some way...but if a player has not been punished in any way by MLB, be it for corking or PEDs or whatever, then his slate should be considered clean for HOF voting purposes. Allen- Perhaps this is their punishment. |
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Jan 11, 2013 16:16:12 GMT -5
Allen- In Clemens' case, people testified under oath that he used, and he has since confessed. Bonds? If the obvious physical changes weren't enough, you have a guy who went to jail rather than testify. If Bonds didn't use why would Anderson do that?
If you really don't think either player used, you are just deceiving yourself.
Dood - be that as it may, according to MLB, no rules infractions ever took place. I just think it's a bad precedent for HOF voters to start excluding players they BELIEVE cheated but who never were actually suspended by MLB.
Secondly, and the more important point...the voters should not be the moral mediators of who deserves to be in the HOF.
Allen- Actually, they have been entrusted with just that task, and a criteria has been set forth for them to follow that includes a character clause. Disagree with their decisions if you like, but don't say it's not their job.
Dood - exactly...the clause is what I have a problem with. Voters should be deciding on what they are reportedly "experts" on...baseball. They are not moral experts and so that clause gives them power they should not be entrusted with. Probably half the voters are far less moral themselves than the guys on whom they are passing judgment.
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jan 11, 2013 19:40:58 GMT -5
Who would you give the responsibility to? The HOFers? They sure wouldn't vote Bonds in. The fans? Doubtful. I don't even think Giants fans as a whole would vote Bonds in.
I doubt that you could find six people in the world less moral than Barry Bonds. You got Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, but then who? Charlie Sheen? At least he's honest and upfront about who he is. Bonds is a liar and a fraud in addition to everything else.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Jan 14, 2013 12:49:25 GMT -5
you want to make this about Bonds but thats not what the thread is specifically about. My main points were...
1. The HOF shouldnt IMO be for solid citizenship...it should be for baseball excellence.
2. Voters shouldnt be using their personal feelings about a player outside of the lines in choosing who to include and exclude.
The character clause brings these two completely irrelevant issues into play when they absolutely should NOT be (again, IMO).
~Dood
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jan 14, 2013 13:42:16 GMT -5
you want to make this about Bonds but thats not what the thread is specifically about. My main points were... 1. The HOF shouldnt IMO be for solid citizenship...it should be for baseball excellence. 2. Voters shouldnt be using their personal feelings about a player outside of the lines in choosing who to include and exclude. The character clause brings these two completely irrelevant issues into play when they absolutely should NOT be (again, IMO). ~ dk...the voting for the HOF has always been a "Character" vote....even worse, it has been simply how a player deals with the media during his career......until his beaning, Joe Medwick was one of the most feared right handed hitters in baseball...but he had a stormy career with some fans and most writers ...and he was kept out of the HOF for 20 years......and on a personal note, I had a nice talk with Joe when I was 17...... |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jan 14, 2013 17:46:24 GMT -5
you want to make this about Bonds but thats not what the thread is specifically about. My main points were... Allen- I'm pretty sure Bonds is the guy you're interested in. As for me, I say ban 'em all. Expunge them from the record books. Obliterate any record that they ever existed. Every last one of them. 1. The HOF shouldnt IMO be for solid citizenship...it should be for baseball excellence. Allen- Cheating is not baseball excellence. 2. Voters shouldnt be using their personal feelings about a player outside of the lines in choosing who to include and exclude. Allen- Is there evidence that this was done? |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jan 14, 2013 17:50:53 GMT -5
you want to make this about Bonds but thats not what the thread is specifically about. My main points were... Allen- I'm sure Bonds is the guy most here have an issue about. As for me, ban 'em all. Expunge them from the record book. Take away any sign that they ever existed. Every last one of them. 1. The HOF shouldnt IMO be for solid citizenship...it should be for baseball excellence. Allen- Cheating is not baseball excellence. 2. Voters shouldnt be using their personal feelings about a player outside of the lines in choosing who to include and exclude. Allen- Since none of them have been inducted, I don't think any personal bias exists. It seems to be more about the cheating. |
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jan 15, 2013 10:57:30 GMT -5
Allen- Who would you give the responsibility to? The HOFers? They sure wouldn't vote Bonds in. The fans? Doubtful. I don't even think Giants fans as a whole would vote Bonds in.
I doubt that you could find six people in the world less moral than Barry Bonds. You got Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, but then who? Charlie Sheen? At least he's honest and upfront about who he is. Bonds is a liar and a fraud in addition to everything else.
Boagie- This is a great example of why we shouldn't let over-opinionated people take over the HoF voting. They base everything on the images we are force fed in the paper and on the T.V. without really taking in consideration the true facts.
Allen and others who think the PED users should never be in the HoF think that the HoF is some sort of good guys club.
In reality, the Hall of Fame is a museum. Museums are supposed to tell a story of a certain time period. Whether you like Bonds or Clemens, they are part of the story of baseball during the steriod era. If they are not allowed in, then the museum is not accurately representing the time period.
Much like if Obama, Pelosi and Reid were just erased from history because they don't agree with Allen's politics. I don't like them either, but I wouldn't disregard them just because I don't agree with them. Someday they will be in a museum too, if they aren't already.
Speaking of wiping out people from history...
Hitler was about 6 million times as evil as Bonds, but if you go to a World War 2 wing of any museum you're likely to see his face. It wouldn't be telling an accurate story of World War 2 if you didn't.
Love em or hate em..Bonds belongs in the Hall of Fame.
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jan 15, 2013 15:10:49 GMT -5
.
Speaking of wiping out people from history...
Hitler was about 6 million times as evil as Bonds, but if you go to a World War 2 wing of any museum you're likely to see his face. It wouldn't be telling an accurate story of World War 2 if you didn't.
Love em or hate em..Bonds belongs in the Hall of Fame. [/quote]
dk...I think your statement is excellant, but I see nothing wrong with delaying the election of guys who are users for a period of time if they have been proven to have broken the rules...per your argument, I think Pete Rose has waited long enough to be elected to the HOF...into that special wing....Pete was never caught betting when he was a player....,,.I still would rather have a guy who bet on his team to win than an over blown guy who, in my opinion, played for his stats and not to win.....
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jan 15, 2013 15:29:09 GMT -5
Boagie- This is a great example of why we shouldn't let over-opinionated people take over the HoF voting. They base everything on the images we are force fed in the paper and on the T.V. without really taking in consideration the true facts.
Allen- What are the true facts? Bonds, who already had impeccable HOF credentials, chose to start using PEDs because a white man held the single season HR record. Then he lied about it and became a convicted felon.
What other pertinent facts are there? Bonds cheated. If you want to have a steroid wing in the HOF, fine. Put in there how these guys warped the record book, ruined the integrity of the game, and ripped off the fans, the other players, their teams, and ultimately their own legacies. Maybe you could put a little syringe on their plaques. You could call it "The Wing of Shame in the Hall of Fame."
You could represent them much as you would represent Hitler in a WWII museum.
Allen and others who think the PED users should never be in the HoF think that the HoF is some sort of good guys club.
Allen- Not at all. There are some despicable characters in there, but no one who used chemical means to change their bodies so they could set artificial records.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jan 15, 2013 20:49:33 GMT -5
Randy -- I'm sorry but something has to be changed with this HOF voting. There were so many great candidates that got shafted this year that it's clear the voting process has to be reformed in order for it to regain any credibility. The way things are, it seems like voters just shut guys out if they have any kind of personal beef with them. It shouldnt have anything to do with anyone's personal character. If we want to do that, then we should think about removing guys like Ty Cobb and other racists who wanted to keep players of color out the game. Whatever you may think of Barry Bonds and Clemens personally, the fact remains they never got caught breaking baseball's rules. Never turned up a dirty blood test. Never got convicted of lying about it under oath...and they both had huge credentials before any steroid cloud emerged over the game. I also am a bit perplexed about this ferver against PED use when there are several busts in Cooperstown of players who reportedly used greenies and other stimulants...including the "real" HR king, Henry Aaron. Rog -- I will tell you the same thing, Randy, I have been telling Allen. There are a lot of cross currents here. Allen would ban all steroid users. You make the legitimate point that several good candidates didn't get in. I suspect that when all is said and done, the appropriate candidates will get in. Jack Morris is the only one who has just one remaining shot, and many don't think he belongs. In another 10 years or so, he will be eligible for induction by the Veterans' Committee, and based on what they have done to date, he will almost certainly get in (as Ron Santo recently did). As has been mentioned here for a few years, it will be more difficult to get in in the future. That might suggest a change in the rules. But IMO it's not because the wrong guys are voting, although I wouldn't mind seeing broadcasters and .com writers being added. This year, next year and the year after are LOADED with stars. Greg Maddux will get in next year, and Craig Biggio (from this year) might get in. Morris could be given one last push and make it. But the competition will make it tough for players to command the requisite 75% of the votes. Should there be changes made? Perhaps. But let's see how things play out the next five or 10 years and then see what makes sense. The question remains as to whether Bonds and Clemens will get in, but I suspect they eventually will do so. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1430#ixzz2I6As7L14 |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jan 15, 2013 20:50:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jan 15, 2013 20:51:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jan 15, 2013 20:52:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jan 15, 2013 20:56:47 GMT -5
Allen- In Clemens' case, people testified under oath that he used, and he has since confessed. Rog -- Perhaps you could give the reference where he confessed, and one for more than one person testifying under oath that he used. My understanding is that the one guy who did so testify is a convicted felon who may not be as credible as Clemens himself. I suspect he did use them, but once again the question arises as to how much proof should be necessary to keep a guy out of the Hall -- if he should be kept out at all. Gaylord Perry clearly violated the rules of baseball. He has admitted so. Sammy Sosa violated the rules. I'm far from sure that any of the others did. The thinking is that Sammy won't make the Hall. He received only something like 12% of the vote. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1430&page=1#ixzz2I6DpmrxR |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jan 15, 2013 20:59:14 GMT -5
Secondly, and the more important point...the voters should not be the moral mediators of who deserves to be in the HOF. Allen- Actually, they have been entrusted with just that task Rog -- No, they haven't, Allen. I realize what the rules of the Hall say, but they don't say how those rules should be weighted. And in the history of the Hall, that character clause hasn't been weighted much at all. Allen, you act as if you speak the truth here. You are merely stating your opinion, and it is one that most disagree with, since there are so many shades of gray, and you are trying to make it a black-and-white issue. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1430&page=1#ixzz2I6EjtmP7 |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jan 15, 2013 21:36:10 GMT -5
Allen -- The effect of greenies is more of a placebo than anything else. Rog -- I'm virtually certain you went to college, so you should know that isn't the case. Allen-If you want to stay up all night, probably not. As for helping with baseball performance, that's what several players have said. In fact the effect may be adverse, as they make you think you're doing better than you really are. |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jan 15, 2013 21:45:30 GMT -5
Secondly, and the more important point...the voters should not be the moral mediators of who deserves to be in the HOF. Allen- Actually, they have been entrusted with just that task Rog -- No, they haven't, Allen. I realize what the rules of the Hall say, but they don't say how those rules should be weighted. And in the history of the Hall, that character clause hasn't been weighted much at all. Allen- Never the less, their task is to vote based on the criteria. Additionallty, I don't think the current situation (players changing their bodies through chemical enhancement in order to compete better) has ever happened before. It's up to the voters to weigh the criteria as they see fit. Evidently they don't think cheating measures up. Allen, you act as if you speak the truth here. You are merely stating your opinion, and it is one that most disagree with, since there are so many shades of gray, and you are trying to make it a black-and-white issue. Allen- I've stated again and again that banning the roid boys is just what I would do, and therefore my opinion. From what I've heard from the clean HOFers, they don't seem to disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jan 15, 2013 23:04:21 GMT -5
Allen- What are the true facts? Rog -- Most facts are true. That's what makes them facts.  |
|
