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

[_Sir_Charles_]

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.

And again, you're basing your opinion solely on "character" issues. There are plenty of players in the hall who've broken mlb rules, mlb standards of character and such. It's all about where exactly do you draw that line? It's so abstract and moves so much over the course of time that it's a blurred wavy line at this point. My suggestion is to remove the line altogether and let it be about what happened on the diamond. Let the stats and the stats alone determine enshrinement.

And the hall would also be a lot more classy without wife beaters, alcoholics, drug users, racists, etc, etc, etc, etc. It's not a place to tour the moral character of the country...it's a baseball museum. That's it. At least that's how I view it.

[kaldaniels]

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

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.

Nah, it just speaks to the psychology of humans waiting till the last possible moment to do some things. I agree that someone that doesn't get in till the 15th try probably isn't of the same tier as someone who got in on their first couple years of eligibility.

But as long as there are 15 years of eligibility you can figure on guys sneaking in at the last minute, which on the whole, isn't a bad thing to me.

I have no idea, but I bet there are a solid group of guys who have been selected from their 9th year on the ballot on...

[REDREAD]

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.

ok I see.
I didn't realize the voters had to consciously select 'no'
thanks

[RedsManRick]

I'm fine with Fay not voting. It's better than sending in a blank ballot and disrespecting the institution.

The Hall of Fame would do a great service by getting rid of the character clause. I believe Bonds, Clemens, etc used steroids and cheated. However, that does not change what happened on the field of play.

Baseball screwed up. It should have caught the cheaters earlier and stopped them from accumulating the performances they did. But they didn't do that. Nothing we do will change history.

We don't keep out Babe Ruth because he only played against white guys. We don't keep out Mickey Mantle or Hank Aaron for being hopped up on greenies. (Think Mantle would have accumulated his stats without some pretty heavy medication?). And we don't keep out Gaylord Perry despite him being an infamous cheater.

The HOF is making this unnecessarily hard. It is MLB's job to punish cheaters and prevent them from playing and sullying the game. It's the reason Pete Rose isn't in the HOF. It made that judgment. We don't need a second filter. The HOF is meant to memorialize the history of the game, particularly its best players. If the guy is among the best (most productive) players in his era, he should be in the HOF. If his being a cheater or a bad guy hurt the teams on which he played so much that it lessened his contributions to his team winning, let your vote reflect that. But if baseball saw fit to let the player accumulate certain stats and impact outcomes, ignoring that is just silly. Let's stop making this so complicated.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

The Hall of Fame would do a great service by getting rid of the character clause. I believe Bonds, Clemens, etc used steroids and cheated. However, that does not change what happened on the field of play.

Baseball screwed up. It should have caught the cheaters earlier and stopped them from accumulating the performances they did. But they didn't do that. Nothing we do will change history.
.

By that logic, shouldn't baseball have caught Pete's gambling sooner?

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.

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.

[757690]

Originally Posted by 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.

I personally would vote for Bonds and Clemens because I believe they were HOFers before they started taking PED's. If they has simply retired the year they started using PED's, they would have deserved to be in the HOF, imo.

However, if they had started using earlier, like McGwire did, I would not want them in the HOF, no matter their production overall. No matter how many MVP's and Cy Young's they won, if they won them while using PED's, they don't belong in the HOF.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

Nah, it just speaks to the psychology of humans waiting till the last possible moment to do some things. I agree that someone that doesn't get in till the 15th try probably isn't of the same tier as someone who got in on their first couple years of eligibility.

But as long as there are 15 years of eligibility you can figure on guys sneaking in at the last minute, which on the whole, isn't a bad thing to me.

I have no idea, but I bet there are a solid group of guys who have been selected from their 9th year on the ballot on...

I'll agree that there will be a "solid" group of guys. Great players. No argument at all from me. But are they the "best of the best"? Lots of players were all-stars multiple times. But were they dominating players of their era? The number of years a player is on the ballot is another thing the HoF should re-think as well IMO. For those borderline players who never get in, this time of the year is simply another round of torture for them I'd think. I would think 5 years is more than enough time to keep someone on the ballot. A couple of years just in case a once-in-a-lifetime type of player pops onto the ballot and overshadows you. A couple of years to lobby your case if needed (although that's also something that shouldn't have to be done IMO). Anything more than that is overkill I'd think. IMO either you're a HoF'er, or your not. If you have to stop and think about it...the guy probably isn't a HoF'er IMO.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

By that logic, shouldn't baseball have caught Pete's gambling sooner?

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.

[reds1869]

John Fay is just one example of why the BBWAA needs to be removed from the process. I've been a Hall of Fame member but this year will not be renewing due to the joke that voting has become. I'll give my financial support to the excellent Reds Hall of Fame instead.

[westofyou]

When the press about the impending HOF vote becomes more about the voters (along with sanctimonious I can't bring myself to vote columns) than it is about the votees then something is broken

[Gallen5862]

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.

[mth123]

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

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.

Bert Blyleven and Jim Rice would disagree.

[mth123]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

I believe it is 75% of ballots cast, not ballots mailed.

Right, and by abstaining he's not casting a ballot.

[mth123]

for the record, I'm in the put them in camp. I think completeness of the history is important. As is, the Hall is missing the all time leaders in both Home Runs and Hits, several member of the 500 HR club, a 600 HR guy and a 350 win pitcher. As RMR said, we can't act like those stats didn't happen.

My Ten Votes would be for Bonds, Clemens, Biggio, Piazza, McGwire, Palmeiro, Sosa, Bagwell, Raines and McGriff

[Roy Tucker]

By nature, it's a controversial topic and I think opinions are going to be all over the map. I don't think there is a clean way out of this. It's going to be very messy.

I don't know how the HoF can solve this issue besides leaving it up to the aggregate opinion of some voting body (writers, players, managers, etc etc) that reflects the varied opinions and comes up with some consensus.