And the Enquirer is under no contractual obligation to keep a lazy journalist who doesn't play the social media game. Fay doesn't get brownie points for doing so.Originally Posted by lidspinner
And the Enquirer is under no contractual obligation to keep a lazy journalist who doesn't play the social media game. Fay doesn't get brownie points for doing so.
I don't but using some of the criteria folks use against some players today could be applied to the players in the 70s
It was there, they were doing it
Get out the assumption glasses, find those who are most likely.
Same result... Paralyzed voters, pointing fingers
Fay belongs to the same group of voters who over the years have given players like Mike Krukow and Jim Deshaies HOF votes. To many writers are simply clueless or don't take their responsibilities very serious. I am not saying Fay is or is not clueless in this instance but I would very much like to see the induction process changed.
"Boys, I'm one of those umpires that misses 'em every once in a while so if it's close, you'd better hit it." Cal Hubbard
As some has pointed out here, there needs to be stronger guidelines when it comes to criteria for some of these players. In a recent article Joe Strauss wrote for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, he brought up this point which makes this whole voting issue a bit murky. He said that when people vote, they have to take into account the Baseball HOF "character clause". Strauss goes onto say that this ecompasses "record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the team(s) on which the player played". I have no love for some of these writers that grandstand and do their mini-version of the Spanish Inquisition. However I can see where some voters will have trouble determining who should be in or not based on the character clause. As maddening as Fay's stance might be to people, I'm not going to criticize him too much over it.
YEa, I pretty much agree with what you say.. If the HOF ignores maybe 5 of the biggest stars of the Steroid era, it is pretty inconsistent.
I also agree with the entire point that "cheating" is kind of a grey area, since the owners ignored it for so long. For all we know, the teams might've been helping the roid users. There was a trainer on one team who said something to the point of "Well, we don't encourage PED use, but if a player decides to use them, we will do all we can to help them..." I'm not saying the team trainer shouldn't help them, but there was definitely a permissive attitude towards it..
And yes, the whole HOF voting process is terribly flawed and inconsistent. One of the reasons that I really don't take it seriously any more.
[Phil ] Castellini celebrated the team's farm system and noted the team had promising prospects who would one day be great Reds -- and then joke then they'd be ex-Reds, saying "of course we're going to lose them". #SellTheTeamBob
Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!
The other thing they could do.. if you fail a certain number of PED tests, you are automatically ineligible for the HOF. Heck, they could expand that list to several drugs. If they really want to be moral about it, the HOF can have a panel for cases like Clemens (as I recall, he never failed a test, but there's evidence to suggest he did use it). Anyhow, the point is that the HOF can set some kind of criteria and if there's too much PED/drug use, just not put the guy on the ballot.
It will never happen though, the HOF would not want to risk backlash (They are a tourist destination).. They want the writers to do their dirty work for them and not have to deal with it.
Another thing that bothers me a little bit. Let's say enough writers keep Bonds out. There's a lot of other supsicious players that may have used PEDs but were never caught.. I hate to say this.. but look at Nolan Ryan.. He had an unprecedented level of performance after 40 (probably a better late career than Clemens).. was he a freak of nature or a PED user? I guess there's no way to know, so we have to presume innocence..
[Phil ] Castellini celebrated the team's farm system and noted the team had promising prospects who would one day be great Reds -- and then joke then they'd be ex-Reds, saying "of course we're going to lose them". #SellTheTeamBob
Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!
For my money (all $1 of it), the NFL has it right when it comes to HOF voting. How they vote is they get 32 guys in a room that debate the worthiness of a player for days. They put era into perspective and people are accountable for their opinions.
The thing I absolutely hate about the MLB HOF vote is that people can become a member even if they don't even follow a sport. As Bernie Miklasz from the St. Louis Post and 101.1 ESPN has pointed out, you have some MLB HOF voters voting on players where all they did was write a small article 40 years ago about baseball. You just don't really see the critical thinking from the hundreds of MLB voters that you do in the NFL.
Is anything as meaningless and a non story as the NFL HOF?
Yet the process for players getting in is 100% better than the MLB HOF...
The MLB HOF is full of Clemens, Bonds, McGwire Etc, right now and always will be. They aren't ignored. The only issue is whether they deserve their own plaque.
Hoping to change my username to 75769024
Different punishments for different crimes.
He was a freak of nature and an absolute workout junkie.
There were a few workout junkies and freaks of nature who ended up being users.
Tell that to Alex Karras
mehh... snubs happen in every sport. I just think it's better with a group of 32 people who do their research making a case for player A than people voting for the Hall of Fame who don't even cover baseball on a regular basis.
Posting Permissions
|
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. |
Reply With Quote