John Fay Abstains from HOF Voting to Avoid Casting Votes for Bonds and Clemens

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/201...t-not-to-vote/

Quote:

---

I’d rather abstain than play judge and jury this year. The two most deserving players statistically of the 37 on the ballot are Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. Bonds was the best hitter I’ve seen. Clemens was the most dominant pitcher.

Both should be absolute locks to be first-ballot inductees.<snip>

But this morning, I was too torn to pull the lever.

---

Take his vote away.

I actually have a problem with this. Either be a Hall voter or give up your right. If you don't have the spine to vote for whom you think should be in, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

It's not about you, John.

His response was insane.

If he thinks they deserve to be in, vote for them. If not, don't vote.

He has no balls. But we know that.

Wuss.

That's the easy way out. And also the weak way.

Just when are you going to decide? Be a man, John. State your opinion or get out of the way and give it to someone who will.

John Fayl.

Personally, I'd love it if all the voters abstained this time. Maybe it'll finally send a signal to the HoF to change their freaking rules. Put in players based on stats alone. Nothing else involved in the decision. If you want to put some comment about morality on their plaque, so be it. But let the performance on the field be the final and only determining factor in induction. Yes, that also means put Rose in there too. Ineligible by MLB or not, the Hall of Fame is a joke without these truly FAMEous players. (yes, I know it's spelled wrong) :O)

Of course in a perfect world, they'd take the writers out of the equation altogether. Let players, managers, gm's and current HoF'ers do the voting.

Fay is terrible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crumbley

Fay is terrible.

---

He's also not the only one doing this.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/87...hall-fame-vote

Of course this guy stopped entirely. Which Fay may do as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

Personally, I'd love it if all the voters abstained this time. Maybe it'll finally send a signal to the HoF to change their freaking rules. Put in players based on stats alone. Nothing else involved in the decision. If you want to put some comment about morality on their plaque, so be it. But let the performance on the field be the final and only determining factor in induction. Yes, that also means put Rose in there too. Ineligible by MLB or not, the Hall of Fame is a joke without these truly FAMEous players. (yes, I know it's spelled wrong) :O)

Of course in a perfect world, they'd take the writers out of the equation altogether. Let players, managers, gm's and current HoF'ers do the voting.

---

As someone who beleive that Pete Rose is clearly not HOF worthy, and neither are Bonds nor Clemens, I like it the way it is.

But people are entitled to their own opinion, and if they want to vote the cheaters in, so be it.

And a HOF without Rose is not a joke. It's a lot more classy to be sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PuffyPig

As someone who beleive that Pete Rose is clearly not HOF worthy, and neither are Bonds nor Clemens, I like it the way it is.

But people are entitled to their own opinion, and if they want to vote the cheaters in, so be it.

And a HOF without Rose is not a joke. It's a lot more classy to be sure.

---

What about Cobb? Or Hornsby? Gaylord Perry was a known cheater.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

Personally, I'd love it if all the voters abstained this time. Maybe it'll finally send a signal to the HoF to change their freaking rules. Put in players based on stats alone. Nothing else involved in the decision. If you want to put some comment about morality on their plaque, so be it. But let the performance on the field be the final and only determining factor in induction. Yes, that also means put Rose in there too. Ineligible by MLB or not, the Hall of Fame is a joke without these truly FAMEous players. (yes, I know it's spelled wrong) :O)

Of course in a perfect world, they'd take the writers out of the equation altogether. Let players, managers, gm's and current HoF'ers do the voting.

---

Not really fair to a guy like Dale Murphy who is on the ballot for the last time.

I will say that abstaining is better than turning in a blank ballot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

Personally, I'd love it if all the voters abstained this time. Maybe it'll finally send a signal to the HoF to change their freaking rules. Put in players based on stats alone. Nothing else involved in the decision. If you want to put some comment about morality on their plaque, so be it. But let the performance on the field be the final and only determining factor in induction. Yes, that also means put Rose in there too. Ineligible by MLB or not, the Hall of Fame is a joke without these truly FAMEous players. (yes, I know it's spelled wrong) :O)

---

Sir Charles, I partially agree and am glad you wrote your post. I was about to write something similar.

I support Fay's move. How on earth do a bunch sportswriters know (a) whether somebody used steroids (b) what impact that possible use of steroids had on his baseball performance or (c) whether the player would have been a Hall of Famer without steroids?

Asking sportswriters to consider a player's supposed, usually unproven, steroid use is ridiculous. Further, this has become a morality issue as much as a baseball issue. The whole voting process has become impossible.

The Hall of Fame needs to set out clear guidelines on this. Charles says that steroid use should be irrelevant. I don't agree, but the important thing is that the Hall should make clear what the guidelines are.

A clear statement from the Hall as to the way in which steroid use should be considered is necessary. If the Hall has already done this, I'm unaware of it.

Seems like by abstaining, Fay is voting no.

Honestly, the HOF is just not worth getting upset over. So many heated internet discussions over a glorified tourist trap. Plenty of people in the HOF that don't really deserve to be there. A few guys were omitted that probably should be in.
Not worth getting excited about.. no vote is going to change my memories of my favorite players.. I really don't care about the HOF.. I'm sure it's a nice place to visit, but I'd rather do other stuff with my vacation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by REDREAD

Seems like by abstaining, Fay is voting no.

Honestly, the HOF is just not worth getting upset over. So many heated internet discussions over a glorified tourist trap. Plenty of people in the HOF that don't really deserve to be there. A few guys were omitted that probably should be in.
Not worth getting excited about.. no vote is going to change my memories of my favorite players.. I really don't care about the HOF.. I'm sure it's a nice place to visit, but I'd rather do other stuff with my vacation.

---

Abstaining isn't the same as a no vote. A no vote means three other guys need to vote yes to maintain a 75% of the ballot pace. Abstaining has no impact.

Maybe we should just let Bill James vote.

I know people don't like Fay and all, but this is a silly thing to criticize him for. He's going with his convictions. I wish more voters would do the same one way or another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brutus

I know people don't like Fay and all, but this is a silly thing to criticize him for. He's going with his convictions. I wish more voters would do the same one way or another.

---

By actually voting, I would say they are following their convictions one way or another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

By actually voting, I would say they are following their convictions one way or another.

---

If someone has clear information that someone used or didn't use steroids, then I would agree, it's a matter of conviction.

But the problem now is that there is so much speculation about players, it's not a matter of conviction. It's a matter of guesswork.

There is much public info about Bonds and Clemens and I guess voters can reach their conclusions about them, either way.
But so many other former players are being labeled based on speculation, without any real information, that the process seems completely messed up.

The Hall of Fame should propound guidelines making clear how steroid use should be considered. The guidelines should specifically address situations where the notion of steroid use is speculative, without clear information. Then people would be better equipped to vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brutus

I know people don't like Fay and all, but this is a silly thing to criticize him for. He's going with his convictions. I wish more voters would do the same one way or another.

---

I'm just laughing at him for his "I don't know what to do" routine. While it may be honest, I don't think it portrays convictions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

I'm just laughing at him for his "I don't know what to do" routine. While it may be honest, I don't think it portrays convictions.

---

It isn't like he hasn't had several years to sort it out and make a well reasoned decision. Oh wait, I've read his stuff....well reasoned is an unrealistic expectation. I've read hometown high school sportswriters that have more insight and acumen to write a game story and a beat article than he does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kc61

If someone has clear information that someone used or didn't use steroids, then I would agree, it's a matter of conviction.

But the problem now is that there is so much speculation about players, it's not a matter of conviction. It's a matter of guesswork.

There is much public info about Bonds and Clemens and I guess voters can reach their conclusions about them, either way.
But so many other former players are being labeled based on speculation, without any real information, that the process seems completely messed up.

The Hall of Fame should propound guidelines making clear how steroid use should be considered. The guidelines should specifically address situations where the notion of steroid use is speculative, without clear information. Then people would be better equipped to vote.

---

Clemens and Bonds used. FACT. Doubting that is being delusional and/or a conspiracy theorist.
It's a matter of how voters decide to view that fact. I think most voters, like most posters here, have a clear opinion on the issue (one way or another). I don't see why Fay can't have one also, since he should be as well informed as most of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oneupper

Clemens and Bonds used. FACT. Doubting that is being delusional and/or a conspiracy theorist.
It's a matter of how voters decide to view that fact. I think most voters, like most posters here, have a clear opinion on the issue (one way or another). I don't see why Fay can't have one also, since he should be as well informed as most of us.

---

Exactly.

We know that many players did use, and that that usage effected their play and production. Just because there are players who may have used that we don't know about or prove, doesn't mean that we can't act on those that we know did use.

There are plenty of people who are guilty of murder who we can't prove are guilty and who we can't put into jail. Does that mean we shouldn't put into jail those that we can prove are murderers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mth123

Abstaining isn't the same as a no vote. A no vote means three other guys need to vote yes to maintain a 75% of the ballot pace. Abstaining has no impact.

---

I believe it is 75% of ballots cast, not ballots mailed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oneupper

Clemens and Bonds used. FACT. Doubting that is being delusional and/or a conspiracy theorist.
It's a matter of how voters decide to view that fact. I think most voters, like most posters here, have a clear opinion on the issue (one way or another). I don't see why Fay can't have one also, since he should be as well informed as most of us.

---

It might be different when your opinion actually means something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mth123

Not really fair to a guy like Dale Murphy who is on the ballot for the last time.

I will say that abstaining is better than turning in a blank ballot.

---

Fair point...but then again, if it takes someone a dozen times in order to get in...are they REALLY Hall of Fame material? If he wasn't the first 10 times he was on the ballot...what makes him have the "right stuff" his final time? I'm not saying he's not worthy, my comment isn't about Dale in particular. Just a general comment about putting guys in at the last possible moment. I get it that not everybody is a first ballot nominee. Some guys will get bumped a year or two because some slam-dunk guy shows up on the ballot for the first time. But after 8 or 10 tries, if you're not in yet...you probably SHOULDN'T be in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brutus

I know people don't like Fay and all, but this is a silly thing to criticize him for. He's going with his convictions. I wish more voters would do the same one way or another.

---

He's not actually going with his convictions at all.

If he was going with his convictions, he'd have voted for them to be in or not.

A Hall of Fame that ignore the most dominating position player and the the most dominating pitcher of an era is silly. Eliminating such players is an effort to whitewash the very fabric of the game and once the HOF adopts that as acceptable behavior, it ceases to have relevance and becomes nothing more than a great collection of memorabilia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PuffyPig

As someone who beleive that Pete Rose is clearly not HOF worthy, and neither are Bonds nor Clemens, I like it the way it is.

But people are entitled to their own opinion, and if they want to vote the cheaters in, so be it.

And a HOF without Rose is not a joke. It's a lot more classy to be sure.

---

And again, you're basing your opinion solely on "character" issues. There are plenty of players in the hall who've broken mlb rules, mlb standards of character and such. It's all about where exactly do you draw that line? It's so abstract and moves so much over the course of time that it's a blurred wavy line at this point. My suggestion is to remove the line altogether and let it be about what happened on the diamond. Let the stats and the stats alone determine enshrinement.

And the hall would also be a lot more classy without wife beaters, alcoholics, drug users, racists, etc, etc, etc, etc. It's not a place to tour the moral character of the country...it's a baseball museum. That's it. At least that's how I view it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

Fair point...but then again, if it takes someone a dozen times in order to get in...are they REALLY Hall of Fame material? If he wasn't the first 10 times he was on the ballot...what makes him have the "right stuff" his final time? I'm not saying he's not worthy, my comment isn't about Dale in particular. Just a general comment about putting guys in at the last possible moment. I get it that not everybody is a first ballot nominee. Some guys will get bumped a year or two because some slam-dunk guy shows up on the ballot for the first time. But after 8 or 10 tries, if you're not in yet...you probably SHOULDN'T be in.

---

Nah, it just speaks to the psychology of humans waiting till the last possible moment to do some things. I agree that someone that doesn't get in till the 15th try probably isn't of the same tier as someone who got in on their first couple years of eligibility.

But as long as there are 15 years of eligibility you can figure on guys sneaking in at the last minute, which on the whole, isn't a bad thing to me.

I have no idea, but I bet there are a solid group of guys who have been selected from their 9th year on the ballot on...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mth123

Abstaining isn't the same as a no vote. A no vote means three other guys need to vote yes to maintain a 75% of the ballot pace. Abstaining has no impact.

---

ok I see.
I didn't realize the voters had to consciously select 'no'
thanks

I'm fine with Fay not voting. It's better than sending in a blank ballot and disrespecting the institution.

The Hall of Fame would do a great service by getting rid of the character clause. I believe Bonds, Clemens, etc used steroids and cheated. However, that does not change what happened on the field of play.

Baseball screwed up. It should have caught the cheaters earlier and stopped them from accumulating the performances they did. But they didn't do that. Nothing we do will change history.

We don't keep out Babe Ruth because he only played against white guys. We don't keep out Mickey Mantle or Hank Aaron for being hopped up on greenies. (Think Mantle would have accumulated his stats without some pretty heavy medication?). And we don't keep out Gaylord Perry despite him being an infamous cheater.

The HOF is making this unnecessarily hard. It is MLB's job to punish cheaters and prevent them from playing and sullying the game. It's the reason Pete Rose isn't in the HOF. It made that judgment. We don't need a second filter. The HOF is meant to memorialize the history of the game, particularly its best players. If the guy is among the best (most productive) players in his era, he should be in the HOF. If his being a cheater or a bad guy hurt the teams on which he played so much that it lessened his contributions to his team winning, let your vote reflect that. But if baseball saw fit to let the player accumulate certain stats and impact outcomes, ignoring that is just silly. Let's stop making this so complicated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

The Hall of Fame would do a great service by getting rid of the character clause. I believe Bonds, Clemens, etc used steroids and cheated. However, that does not change what happened on the field of play.

Baseball screwed up. It should have caught the cheaters earlier and stopped them from accumulating the performances they did. But they didn't do that. Nothing we do will change history.
.

---

By that logic, shouldn't baseball have caught Pete's gambling sooner?

I disagree with this reasoning. How often would the players have to be tested in order to have a high degree of accuracy? Maybe daily? It's just not logistically possible. If anything, the current system is still flawed. Not a criticism of baseball, I just think it's going to be impossible to get 100% accurate testing.

Not that I care one way or another, but I can see why some people don't want to let cheaters like Clemens and Bonds in. They definitely changed what happened on the field by their cheating. In my mind, the damage has already been done, I really don't care if they get in the HOF or not.. Heck, the Giants 2012 division champship is somewhat tainted by roids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jojo

A Hall of Fame that ignore the most dominating position player and the the most dominating pitcher of an era is silly. Eliminating such players is an effort to whitewash the very fabric of the game and once the HOF adopts that as acceptable behavior, it ceases to have relevance and becomes nothing more than a great collection of memorabilia.

---

I personally would vote for Bonds and Clemens because I believe they were HOFers before they started taking PED's. If they has simply retired the year they started using PED's, they would have deserved to be in the HOF, imo.

However, if they had started using earlier, like McGwire did, I would not want them in the HOF, no matter their production overall. No matter how many MVP's and Cy Young's they won, if they won them while using PED's, they don't belong in the HOF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

Nah, it just speaks to the psychology of humans waiting till the last possible moment to do some things. I agree that someone that doesn't get in till the 15th try probably isn't of the same tier as someone who got in on their first couple years of eligibility.

But as long as there are 15 years of eligibility you can figure on guys sneaking in at the last minute, which on the whole, isn't a bad thing to me.

I have no idea, but I bet there are a solid group of guys who have been selected from their 9th year on the ballot on...

---

I'll agree that there will be a "solid" group of guys. Great players. No argument at all from me. But are they the "best of the best"? Lots of players were all-stars multiple times. But were they dominating players of their era? The number of years a player is on the ballot is another thing the HoF should re-think as well IMO. For those borderline players who never get in, this time of the year is simply another round of torture for them I'd think. I would think 5 years is more than enough time to keep someone on the ballot. A couple of years just in case a once-in-a-lifetime type of player pops onto the ballot and overshadows you. A couple of years to lobby your case if needed (although that's also something that shouldn't have to be done IMO). Anything more than that is overkill I'd think. IMO either you're a HoF'er, or your not. If you have to stop and think about it...the guy probably isn't a HoF'er IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by REDREAD

By that logic, shouldn't baseball have caught Pete's gambling sooner?

---

IMO, what MLB did to Pete was appropriate. They kept him out of baseball. But I think this link between banishment from baseball and banishment from the hall needs to go. It's a museum celebrating the history of the game. And like it or not, Rose is a pretty major part of the history of the game. It's a Hall of FAME. Not a Hall of morals and ethics. If baseball decides to banish Clemens & Bonds from baseball for breaking the rules, I'm fine with that. But the Hall still needs to recognize what took place on the field. I don't want to read a world history book that leaves out Hitler just because he was a bad guy. That's what the Hall is attempting to do IMO.

John Fay is just one example of why the BBWAA needs to be removed from the process. I've been a Hall of Fame member but this year will not be renewing due to the joke that voting has become. I'll give my financial support to the excellent Reds Hall of Fame instead.

When the press about the impending HOF vote becomes more about the voters (along with sanctimonious I can't bring myself to vote columns) than it is about the votees then something is broken