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

[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.

[mth123]

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.

[BCubb2003]

Maybe we should just let Bill James vote.

[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.

[Tom Servo]

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.

[Kc61]

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.

[kaldaniels]

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.

[traderumor]

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.

[oneupper]

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.

[757690]

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?

[edabbs44]

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.

[edabbs44]

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.

[_Sir_Charles_]

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.

[Tadasimha]

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.

[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.