Baseball HOF Vote; Nobody Gets In.

[tristanhilton85]

If I had a vote, Morris, Biggio, Bagwell, Piazza, and Martinez would all be in this year. I'm on the fence about Bonds and Clemens; both have HOF stats, no doubt about that, but the steroids issue really bugs me. I understand the argument that they were HOF caliber before they juiced, but the fact that they did hurt their integrity and character, which must also be taken into account according to the guidelines set forth by Cooperstown. No matter how good they were, they were cheaters. This is kind of the same thing with Rose... HOF caliber stats but at best questionable integrity and character; the only difference is that the writers don't have to make a decision on him because he has the ban. In my head, if the writers keep somebody like Clemens or Bonds out for steroids, they are doing so because of their lack of integrity, which I'm fine with. However, for those writers that are doing this, if they would be putting Rose in if they could, than I feel that is a double standard.

The interesting piece will be if the writers continue to keep steroid users out and then somebody does make it in and it comes out after the fact that they too were juicing. What happens then?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by boogielicious

Rose should never get in.  He violated the #1 rule, gambling.  It is cheating just as much as steroids.

Bah, whatever. Different career.

Originally Posted by dsc123

and there is no case for rose. he is barred by the rules.

The rules should be changed.

BTW: http://thesandtrap.com/t/53586/pete-rose-in-the-hall-of-fame/ (75% voted yes)

[RonTheSavage]

From ESPN

Curt Schilling made a good point. Everyone was guilty. Either you used PEDs, or you did nothing to stop their use. This generation got rich. Seems there was a price to pay."

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

To my knowledge neither Bonds or Clemons were found guilty by a court of law to have used steroids nor has either ever failed a drug test.  Do I think they used steroids, yes of course, but the justice system in our country is innocent until PROVEN guilty.

On that basis I believe the juicers that did not fail a drug test or have evidence presented in court that proved they used steroids should be given the benefit of the doubt by those voting and their entry into the HOF should be based on their contributions to the game and their stats.

Well, I'm going to disagree with this.  The rules in a criminal trial are heavily slanted in favor of the accused, because if you're wrongfully convicted the consequence is lengthy imprisonment or possibly death.  I practice criminal law, and I've worked both prosecution and defense, and I agree the rules should be this way--for criminal trials.

HoF voting is an entirely different animal.  It's an honor and privilege to be inducted, not a punishment to be excluded.  The voters should be able to consider anything that is relevant to the decision.

And it's the Hall of Fame, not the hall of hitting the ball really, really far.  By definition, the "sport" is selecting those to be forever enshrined as standard bearers for the game.  Clemons and Bonds (and Mac and Sosa) all had their careers end under clouds of juicing, and have had their greatest accomplishments tarnished because of cheating.  If I were the steward of the Hall, I certainly wouldn't want to perpetuate that legacy for generations to come.

And this isn't really a great logical argument, but I can imagine taking my grandson to Cooperstown in 40 years or so.  "Papaw, who is Barry Bonds?"  "Well son, he used to hit a whole lot of home runs, but he also used steroids and left the game amid scandal and disgrace."  Message sent:  use steroids, and you can still be venerated among the greats of all time.

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

To my knowledge neither Bonds or Clemons were found guilty by a court of law to have used steroids nor has either ever failed a drug test.  Do I think they used steroids, yes of course, but the justice system in our country is innocent until PROVEN guilty.

But I think you've also got to consider that HOF induction is not a constitutional right.  Innocent until proven guilty relates to taking away someone's liberty.  Justice.  You have to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.  But if there's no jail time, just a court ordering you to pay someone money or to stop doing something, you only have to prove your case to a 'more likely than not' standard.  So if we're just talking about admission to a private, elite, and admittedly subjective club, shouldn't some lower standard of proof apply?

That doesn't necessarily defeat the general notion that you shouldn't deny someone something without evidence.  But we do have evidence.  There is sworn testimony, admitted into evidence in courts of law, that both Clemens and Bonds juiced.  Witnesses have stated so.  Books have been written about it.  Many of them.  So there is evidence.  Its just a matter of how much should you require.  A judicial verdict is a pretty steep requirement.  Particularly since these aren't crimes that tend to get prosecuted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

The rules should be changed.

BTW: http://thesandtrap.com/t/53586/pete-rose-in-the-hall-of-fame/ (75% voted yes)

Allow players on the ban list into the HOF or take him off the ban list?  If you change the HOF rule, does Shoeless Joe get it?  He threw a world series (unless you believe Ray Kinsella).  I just think its an interesting topic without a clear answer.  I probably voted yes in that poll.

But my point was just that it isn't a matter of whether the voters should induct Rose--either MLB or the HOF has to take action.  Because of this, Rose isn't really comparable to the juicers.  He is ineligible.  A voter can vote for a juicer, but he has to consider the juicer's character, integrity, sportsmanship, etc.  Doesn't mean that only good character guys can get in.  Voters can weight those factors how they choose, but they have to consider them.  I.e., "Sure, Ty Cobb was a dispicable racist, but the HOF would be incomplete without him."

Originally Posted by RonTheSavage

Curt Schilling made a good point. Everyone was guilty. Either you used PEDs, or you did nothing to stop their use. This generation got rich. Seems there was a price to pay."

I saw this and found it to be really interesting.  But then I thought about it some more.  Schilling is a border line HOF'er.  He's not getting in on the first ballot regardless of the steroid issue.  Is he just using this as an excuse for his own exclusion?  To blame the juice rather than simply admit that he is not a first ballot hall of famer?  I mean, i recognize that he is sort of taking the blame by saying he should have stopped it.  But its still blaming the juice issue instead of admitting that he simply wasn't that good.

[CanuckAaron]

Originally Posted by k-troop

Well, I'm going to disagree with this.  The rules in a criminal trial are heavily slanted in favor of the accused, because if you're wrongfully convicted the consequence is lengthy imprisonment or possibly death.  I practice criminal law, and I've worked both prosecution and defense, and I agree the rules should be this way--for criminal trials.

HoF voting is an entirely different animal.  It's an honor and privilege to be inducted, not a punishment to be excluded.  The voters should be able to consider anything that is relevant to the decision.

And it's the Hall of Fame, not the hall of hitting the ball really, really far.  By definition, the "sport" is selecting those to be forever enshrined as standard bearers for the game.  Clemons and Bonds (and Mac and Sosa) all had their careers end under clouds of juicing, and have had their greatest accomplishments tarnished because of cheating.  If I were the steward of the Hall, I certainly wouldn't want to perpetuate that legacy for generations to come.

And this isn't really a great logical argument, but I can imagine taking my grandson to Cooperstown in 40 years or so.  "Papaw, who is Barry Bonds?"  "Well son, he used to hit a whole lot of home runs, but he also used steroids and left the game amid scandal and disgrace."  Message sent:  use steroids, and you can still be venerated among the greats of all time.

Good point but isn't there a saying that says that those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it? If someone can prove to me that only Clemens, Bonds and maybe a select few were taking steroids then by all means don't let them in, but I have a hard time believing that. When McGuire, Bonds, Sosa etc. were smashing all of those home runs everyone one of those journalists who are now voting to keep them out were praising them, writing stories for ESPN, Sports Illustrated etc. and none of them knew what was happening They are a bunch of hypocrites.

Also, to the best of my knowledge steroids do not help you hit a major league curve ball, they help you train harder so you can hit it farther, it still takes a tremendous amount of skill to hit that many home runs no matter how many steoids you use.

[geauxforbroke]

Originally Posted by dsc123

Allow players on the ban list into the HOF or take him off the ban list?  If you change the HOF rule, does Shoeless Joe get it?  He threw a world series (unless you believe Ray Kinsella).

Do you really believe he threw the series? He batted close to .400 and didn't have any errors. And to my knowledge, he was never convicted, never confessed, and the other players implicated later said he wasn't involved. I think baseball is keeping him ineligible to avoid having to admit that the decision to ban him was a knee-jerk reaction that no one took the time to fix.

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by CanuckAaron

Also, to the best of my knowledge steroids do not help you hit a major league curve ball, they help you train harder so you can hit it farther, it still takes a tremendous amount of skill to hit that many home runs no matter how many steoids you use.

From 87 through 99, Bonds averaged 33 home runs a year.  Really really good.  From 2000 through 2004, he averaged 52 home runs.  Those were his age 35-39 seasons.

So yes, Bonds had some amazing skills.  But the steroid turned him from a lesser Joe Dimaggio into Babe Ruth.  When he turned 35.

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by geauxforbroke

Do you really believe he threw the series? He batted close to .400 and didn't have any errors. And to my knowledge, he was never convicted, never confessed, and the other players implicated later said he wasn't involved. I think baseball is keeping him ineligible to avoid having to admit that the decision to ban him was a knee-jerk reaction that no one took the time to fix.

It happened almost 100 years ago, i have no idea what really happened.  But I don't think Bud Selig is protecting a decision someone else made 100 years ago because he would be embarrassed to admit it was wrong.

But if he took the money, and played his best anyway, I still think he should be banned.

[geauxforbroke]

Originally Posted by dsc123

It happened almost 100 years ago, i have no idea what really happened.  But I don't think Bud Selig is protecting a decision someone else made 100 years ago because he would be embarrassed to admit it was wrong.

You might be right. Just bugs me that baseball has never taken the initiative to review all the information available and either a) affirm the ban or b) overturn it. Selig has several times said that his case is under review, but then we don't hear anything else about it.

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by geauxforbroke

You might be right. Just bugs me that baseball has never taken the initiative to review all the information available and either a) affirm the ban or b) overturn it. Selig has several times said that his case is under review, but then we don't hear anything else about it.

As is, its an interesting piece of baseball lore.   I hope it doesn't change for that reason alone.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by tristanhilton85

The interesting piece will be if the writers continue to keep steroid users out and then somebody does make it in and it comes out after the fact that they too were juicing. What happens then?

This is spot on, and one of the main reasons why I think they should all get in.  As far as I know, nobody REALLY has any idea who all was using and for how long.

Once one of the HOF members gets "outed" for steroids, then what do they do?  Un-enshrine him?  Or let in all of the others?  Either way its a mess.  I wish they would just let them all in and also add to their plaques that they played during the steroid era.  Something, say, like this ...

(I took this picture this past August)

Also, what is the writers' justification for including a known cheater - Gaylord Perry - and celebrating him for his cheating, but taking a stance on this issue?  Seems pretty hypocritical to me.

Lastly, the actual hall in the middle of the place where all of the plaques are is the most boring part of the museum anyway.  The memorabilia, old uniforms, interactive games, photos, all that good stuff around the rest of the building is the fun stuff.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by dsc123

Allow players on the ban list into the HOF or take him off the ban list?  If you change the HOF rule, does Shoeless Joe get it?  He threw a world series (unless you believe Ray Kinsella).

Allow both of them in. Take them off the list. He didn't throw the Series, and Pete didn't do anything bad as a player.

OT for this thread though, so I kept it short.

[geauxforbroke]

Originally Posted by iacas

Allow both of them in. Take them off the list. He didn't throw the Series, and Pete didn't do anything bad as a player.

+1

[tristanhilton85]

Honestly, I think that in time, they will get in. This is only the first year on the ballot for Clemens and Bonds, and McGwire isn't that far into his 15 years either so I think as time goes on and we get further and further from the "PED era" opinions will change, and they'll get the vote. It may just end up being a situation where guys who are on the borderline stats wise may not get that push into the hall where they may have before. For example; Jack Morris will probably get in next year but the "Jack Morris" from the PED era probably won't as writers may view it that the PEDs got them to where it was close enough. I think guys are going to have to have phenomenal numbers to get in if there is even a hint of suspicion that they juiced.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by tristanhilton85

Honestly, I think that in time, they will get in. This is only the first year on the ballot for Clemens and Bonds, and McGwire isn't that far into his 15 years either so I think as time goes on and we get further and further from the "PED era" opinions will change, and they'll get the vote. It may just end up being a situation where guys who are on the borderline stats wise may not get that push into the hall where they may have before. For example; Jack Morris will probably get in next year but the "Jack Morris" from the PED era probably won't as writers may view it that the PEDs got them to where it was close enough. I think guys are going to have to have phenomenal numbers to get in if there is even a hint of suspicion that they juiced.

Good point.  I agree.

I also wonder how it will affect the way people view future players.  Even though we know a lot of the records are, or may be, tainted, they are still the records.  Now that the game is clean, all careers will seem a little less impressive.  Or, we'll go the other way, know that they are clean and the recold-holders probably weren't, and respect those lower numbers more.

I like the people who say it's just another era, and part of the games history.  All numbers are tainted and could have some sort of asterisk next to it.  Babe Ruth didn't have to compete against black players.  Roger Maris got to play in a longer season, Hank Aaron hit juiced baseballs, Barry Bonds played in the steroid era, etc, etc.  The game was never perfect, and it never will be, and like it or not, the 90's happened.

[boogielicious]

Originally Posted by k-troop

And this isn't really a great logical argument, but I can imagine taking my grandson to Cooperstown in 40 years or so.  "Papaw, who is Barry Bonds?"  "Well son, he used to hit a whole lot of home runs, but he also used steroids and left the game amid scandal and disgrace."  Message sent:  use steroids, and you can still be venerated among the greats of all time.

This is my thought with regards to Rose.  He knew gambling was illegal and against the rules, but he still did it.  We can assume he never bet to lose, but it is only an assumption.

[tristanhilton85]

Originally Posted by tristanhilton85

If I had a vote, Morris, Biggio, Bagwell, Piazza, and Martinez would all be in this year. I'm on the fence about Bonds and Clemens; both have HOF stats, no doubt about that, but the steroids issue really bugs me. I understand the argument that they were HOF caliber before they juiced, but the fact that they did hurt their integrity and character, which must also be taken into account according to the guidelines set forth by Cooperstown. No matter how good they were, they were cheaters. This is kind of the same thing with Rose... HOF caliber stats but at best questionable integrity and character; the only difference is that the writers don't have to make a decision on him because he has the ban. In my head, if the writers keep somebody like Clemens or Bonds out for steroids, they are doing so because of their lack of integrity, which I'm fine with. However, for those writers that are doing this, if they would be putting Rose in if they could, than I feel that is a double standard.

The interesting piece will be if the writers continue to keep steroid users out and then somebody does make it in and it comes out after the fact that they too were juicing. What happens then?

So, I was reading the Pete Rose thread right now and apparently my opinion has changed somewhat... in that thread I said Rose should get in while I would keep Bonds, Clemens and other PED users out for the fact that while both were integrity issues, the PED users' actions impacted their on the field performance and final statistics. I guess what I didn't take into account the first time is that while their stats were affected by the PED use, they were still HOF caliber before and because of that it boils down to being just an integrity issue... at least for me.

I've been an XM subscriber for years now and I'm always listening to the baseball channel and they had a good interview today with a BBWAA member, Moss Klein. In one part he was talking about the clause about integrity/character with regards to admission to the HOF and that it was essentially put there by a former commissioner (sorry, can't remember which one) to help a player he was lobbying for get into the hall because that player had stats that weren't quite good enough him there on his own. If that's the case, it's almost as if the writers are using it backwards now... the idea was to have it there so guys on the fence that had great character/integrity could get in, not so they could keep out guys who otherwise would have made it.