BTW - The HOF itself and the town of Cooperstown are the real losers here. Both rely heavily on the huge revenues generated by induction weekend.
BTW - The HOF itself and the town of Cooperstown are the real losers here. Both rely heavily on the huge revenues generated by induction weekend.
"I prefer books and movies where the conflict isn't of the extreme cannibal apocalypse variety I guess." Redsfaithful
So a reaction article based on an unconfirmed allegation (which I believe the NY Times sports editor later admitted never should have been published) constitutes evidence for you?
To Frank Thomas' point, I also wouldn't be shocked if Frank Thomas' name came up in connection to PED use. The article posted about Piazza in this very thread is more damning than what you've got here about Sosa.
I'll say it again, what makes Sosa more guilty than Piazza or Bagwell? Show me the hard evidence. Because they're getting in to Cooperstown while Sammy's only getting reviled.
I'm not a system player. I am a system.
Fair enough (though I said "nothing that implicates him more than"), his name came up in a discredited story purporting to out those who failed the anonymous 2003 test.
So there is a vague implication, and while he very well might be guilty of juicing (wouldn't shock me), his guilt is assumed while Piazza and Bagwell (both of whom have found themselves squarely in Jeff Pearlman's sites) are eventually getting into the Hall.
I'm not saying Sosa is innocent. My point is that he's getting screwed by a patently uneven set of voting standards.
Last edited by M2; 01-09-2013 at 08:14 PM.
I'm not a system player. I am a system.
Well, I agree with you on the last point.
Earlier in this thread, you stated that "Perhaps the Union (who did all it could to avoid testing) and their teams (do not insult my intelligence by claiming they knew nothing)..." So you'll take it for granted that the Union and owners -- whose job it is to protect the players and their teams, respectively -- knew what was going on, but defend the writers -- whose job it is to report the truth -- on grounds of ignorance?
I am not saying that all writers knew what was going on, and I have no idea what kind of "proof" they had (I think that's moot, really, because I think most of them didn't even bother to pursue the story). And I am certainly not "defending" the players. I am speaking specifically to what I see as moral relativism and self-interest by the writers. Maybe they didn't all know, but there is no way -- no way -- that there wasn't a whiff enough of a story to pursue. There was enough of that whiff in public, among people with no access to the players. And no one was willing to do that in 1998, when McGwire and Sosa were saving baseball and making baseball journalism relevant again. No one was willing to do that, in fact, until there was a whipping boy or two that was a sure bet to sell some papers and the public got hungry for a new story. When it was clear that the public was willing to turn on certain players, then the journalists followed suit. It didn't happen the other way around. And it was clear that the public was going to turn on the players, because it's easier to turn on a well-known face and a hero than it is a faceless owner or a boring nebulous union. So that's what the writers went with.
I have mixed feelings about the HOF and I'm not even sure how I feel about certain people getting in. But the fact that these men have not been proven guilty of anything, that their whole careers went by without punishment, and now the writers of all people have anointed themselves as the ones to impose judgment and repercussions on them, because nobody else has found a way to do it legally...I think it's awful. It makes the Hall of Fame entry criteria even more ambiguous than it used to be (which I did not think possible). And that, frankly, makes the Hall of Fame kind of a joke.
There is no such thing as a pitching prospect.
Since the topic is still relatively new and additional info has a fairly good chance to come out, I wonder if the voters are just delaying the decision until there is a better view. It would be a bad scene if they vote player X in and he is exposed 6 months later.
Not everyone loved Sammy in Chicago. He wore out his welcome. His bunny hopping, self indulgent behavior wore thin in the clubhouse. Add to that his walking out on the last game of the year and corked bat incident, he was far from the patron saint some of the bleacher bums thought he was. I would say his pathetic appearance before congress played the biggest role in keeping his vote count so low. No sympathy from me - my least favorite Cub of all time.
"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
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. |