Turn Off Ads?
Page 4 of 20 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 297

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

  1. #46
    All work and no play..... Vottomatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lebanon
    Posts
    7,067

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

    I think it's good seeing Fay practicing abstinence.
    "I can't take this homerism anymore." - 10xWSChamps, August 11, 2010. A Cardinals fan having a problem with all the homerism on Redszone. Classic.

    "Man do I miss the days where were didn't need a calculator and an encyclopedia of baseball metrics to enjoy a baseball game ... - MikeS21" - 8/2/12 game thread

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #47
    Where's my chair? REDREAD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    21,095

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

    Quote Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_ View Post
    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.
    Well, I agree, the HOF has become another way to punish players.. whether we agree with the reasoning or not, it's a punishment used. If anything, it's a statement of baseball's hypocracy. I remember and interview where Towers said that as the Padres GM, he knew Camminiti was juicing, but the Padres really didn't care.. He was putting up MVP seasons and selling tickets. No one cared until Camminiti died (and did they really care then? Or was that just crocodile tears)..

    Heck, look at the punishment system today.. It was largely implemented only because Congress forced MLB to do it. You have guys like Manny Rammeriz who keep getting multiple chances. It's not unlike Steve Howe's drug use. In the end, the owners say it's cheating, but they condone it. When the player retires (or is at the end of their career), baseball suddenly become all moral about it.

    When I was a kid, we used to play these board game war games. One guy wasn't particularly good at it, and he compensated by pushing a few extra tanks on to his home country when no one was looking. Sometimes he got caught, other times he didn't. We all knew he was "Cheating" but that was part of playing with him. We'd just laugh when we caught him. In a way, I think that's how the owners feel about steroid cheating.
    Thank you Walt and Bob for going for it in 2010-2014!

    Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!

  4. #48
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Guelph, ON
    Posts
    16,042

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

    Quote Originally Posted by REDREAD View Post
    By that logic, shouldn't baseball have caught Pete's gambling sooner?
    Did Pete's gambling affect the outcomes on the field? I guess we'll never know, but it's hard to make an evidence based case that it did. In any event, they decide to explicitly ban him the from the game and he's never appeared on a HOF ballot. The decision was made and we didn't have to kvetch about it.

    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.
    That's completely fair and I'm not suggesting we should have perfect testing done daily. Rather, I'm saying that the "punishment" should fit the crime. If MLB itself doesn't see steroid use as a "crime" meriting a suspension for less than 1/3 of a season, why should it serve as the basis for keeping a player out of the HOF?

    If having "tainted" stats means the player should be ignored after he retires, shouldn't the same logic justify permanent bans from the game for failed tests. In other words, if any of the stats you're about to put up lack legitimacy, then do we really want you putting them up. It strikes me as hypocritical to say that a guy should only lose a tiny fraction of his career for cheating and then to ignore massive swaths of his career after he retires.

    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.
    I agree completely. The damage is done. The bottom line point is this. At the end of the day, we remember what actually happened. Having a history museum that leaves giant, gaping holes in our collective record does nothing to enhance our celebration of the game. A Hall of Fame that has all of the game's best players, some of whom were liars and cheats, is a better institution than one that has just some of the game's best players, some of whom prior to 1990 were liars and cheats and none of whom after then were ever caught. Just trying (and failing) to explain it succinctly serves to make the point.
    Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.

  5. #49
    Et tu, Brutus? Brutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Posts
    10,570

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tadasimha View Post
    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.
    Not wanting to decide the fate of a controversial vote is still a conviction...

    I didn't vote in the previous presidential election because I didn't support either candidate and wasn't going to vote just to say I voted if I didn't support one. Isn't that a conviction?

    If people can't support for why they're voting for something, they shouldn't vote. I think he's doing more to preserve the sanctity of the HOF vote than by voting just to show he has a 'spine.'
    Last edited by Brutus; 12-31-2012 at 03:43 PM.
    "No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda

  6. #50
    Viva la Rolen kaldaniels's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,049

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutus View Post
    Not wanting to decide the fate of a controversial vote is still a conviction...

    I didn't vote in the previous presidential election because I didn't support either candidate and wasn't going to vote just to say I voted if I didn't support one. Isn't that a conviction?

    If people can't support for why they're voting for something, they shouldn't vote. I think he's doing more to preserve the sanctity of the HOF vote than by voting just to show he has a 'spine.'
    Conviction is defined as a strong persuasion or belief. Fay just seemed wishy washy about the whole thing. His vote was prepared the night before, then he wussed out.

    It's not that I laugh at the end result, but instead it was the way it was handled and then written about in a way to make Fay look holy that seems silly.

  7. #51
    Five Tool Fool jojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    18,993

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

    By not voting at all, Fay is not only avoiding a controversial decision to exclude the two players who were clearly the best of their generation, he is also implying that no other players on the ballot warranted a vote.

    Neither implication is particularly symbolic of a backbone or overriding conviction.
    "This isnít stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

  8. #52
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Guelph, ON
    Posts
    16,042

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jojo View Post
    By not voting at all, Fay is not only avoiding a controversial decision to exclude the two players who were clearly the best of their generation, he is also implying that no other players on the ballot warranted a vote.

    Neither implication is particularly symbolic of a backbone or overriding conviction.
    I don't see how you arrive at the second point. A submitted ballot carries a vote on every player on that ballot. The HOF is not a typical poll where it's person A vs. person B and a race left unmarked has no impact.

    It's not person vs. person, it's person vs. ballots. Every player on a submitted ballot has a vote cast for him or, by inference, against him. If you do not a vote a guy in, you are adding to his denominator but not his numerator.

    If Fay could have removed a subset of players from consideration, adding to neither their numerator nor denominator, I get the sense that he would have done that. But to submit a ballot with blanks for players like Bonds, Clemens, etc. is to vote "no". And he couldn't in good conscious vote either yes or no for those guys. And since voting for anybody meant voting (for or against) for everybody, he abstained. It infers nothing about the remainder of the ballot.
    Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.

  9. #53
    Member paulrichjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Savannah, TN
    Posts
    2,905

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gallen5862 View Post
    The thing about Pete Rose is that Pete Rose the player did not get caught doing something to tarnish his numbers. Pete Rose the player deserves a up or down vote on if his accomplishments deserve to be in the hall of fame. Pete Rose the manager violated the gambleing rules and was banned from baseball. Pete Rose the manager should not be put on the ballot for the manager side of the hall of fame, It was the manager that was banned from baseball not the player.
    Well said. I never thought of it from that viewpoint.
    Tim McCarver: Baseball Quotes
    I remember one time going out to the mound to talk with Bob Gibson. He told me to get back behind the batter, that the only thing I knew about pitching was that it was hard to hit.

  10. #54
    You're soaking in it! MartyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    3,350

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gallen5862 View Post
    The thing about Pete Rose is that Pete Rose the player did not get caught doing something to tarnish his numbers. Pete Rose the player deserves a up or down vote on if his accomplishments deserve to be in the hall of fame. Pete Rose the manager violated the gambleing rules and was banned from baseball. Pete Rose the manager should not be put on the ballot for the manager side of the hall of fame, It was the manager that was banned from baseball not the player.
    I think this makes total sense....

    Back to the John Fay portion of abstaining....it is a gutless move and he should lose his privilege to vote for HOF.
    "Sometimes, it's not the sexiest moves that put you over the top," Krivsky said. "It's a series of transactions that help you get there."

  11. #55
    Five Tool Fool jojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    18,993

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsManRick View Post
    I don't see how you arrive at the second point. A submitted ballot carries a vote on every player on that ballot. The HOF is not a typical poll where it's person A vs. person B and a race left unmarked has no impact.

    It's not person vs. person, it's person vs. ballots. Every player on a submitted ballot has a vote cast for him or, by inference, against him. If you do not a vote a guy in, you are adding to his denominator but not his numerator.

    If Fay could have removed a subset of players from consideration, adding to neither their numerator nor denominator, I get the sense that he would have done that. But to submit a ballot with blanks for players like Bonds, Clemens, etc. is to vote "no". And he couldn't in good conscious vote either yes or no for those guys. And since voting for anybody meant voting (for or against) for everybody, he abstained. It infers nothing about the remainder of the ballot.
    By abstaining, Fay is in essence failing to vote for anyone regardless of whether they are worthy or not. So either he felt only Bonds and Clemens rose to the level of hall of famer or he basically is saying no one deserves consideration until he determines the appropriate course on the two best players of their generation.

    I think it's irresponsible for a voter to abstain unless he feels it's a zero ballot. That's not the argument that Fay made though.
    "This isnít stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

  12. #56
    Danger is my business! oneupper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Back in Florida
    Posts
    8,157

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

    Quote Originally Posted by edabbs44 View Post
    It might be different when your opinion actually means something.
    Perhaps. But that's the responsibility that comes with the job. Fay just wants everyone to like him, something that's not possible when you actually make decisions with which many will disagree (one way or another).
    Its a cop-out.
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."

    http://dalmady.blogspot.com

  13. #57
    Oy Vey! Red in Chicago's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Chicago Suburbs
    Posts
    3,426

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

    At the very least, he should have voted for Alan Trammell.

  14. #58
    Et tu, Brutus? Brutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Posts
    10,570

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

    Quote Originally Posted by kaldaniels View Post
    Conviction is defined as a strong persuasion or belief. Fay just seemed wishy washy about the whole thing. His vote was prepared the night before, then he wussed out.

    It's not that I laugh at the end result, but instead it was the way it was handled and then written about in a way to make Fay look holy that seems silly.
    Well that's certainly fair. But like Rick said, he is preserving the sanctity of the vote because he's not impacting the percentages of people he would vote or not vote for. It seems a lot of people are chastising him because he's a voter so therefore he should be obligated to vote. I respect him for not influencing the vote based on the premise being debated.
    "No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda

  15. #59
    Viva la Rolen kaldaniels's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,049

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutus View Post
    Well that's certainly fair. But like Rick said, he is preserving the sanctity of the vote because he's not impacting the percentages of people he would vote or not vote for. It seems a lot of people are chastising him because he's a voter so therefore he should be obligated to vote. I respect him for not influencing the vote based on the premise being debated.
    I will agree those who turn in an empty ballot in protest are doing worse than what Fay did.

  16. #60
    Flash the leather! _Sir_Charles_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    8,384

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mth123 View Post
    Bert Blyleven and Jim Rice would disagree.
    Yes, they would. But both of those guys are the poster boys for borderline HoF'ers IMO. I'm happy for both of them. They were both great players and I enjoyed watching both of them play. But even now I'm not 100% sure they should be in the HoF.
    2014 predictions:
    99-63 WS champs (Cards take 2nd WC, Mil 3rd, Pit 4th, Chi 5th)
    Bruce/Votto neck and neck MVP race (neither takes it)
    Bailey CYA winner
    Hamilton ROY & GG


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25