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

[Unassisted]

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

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.

[kheidg-]

Take his vote away.

[CySeymour]

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.

[kaldaniels]

It's not about you, John.

[PuffyPig]

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.

[Tom Servo]

Wuss.

[Roy Tucker]

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.

[Chip R]

John Fayl.

[_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.

[Crumbley]

Fay is terrible.

[_Sir_Charles_]

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.

[PuffyPig]

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.

[CySeymour]

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.

[mth123]

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.

[Kc61]

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.