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

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Kc61

He has expertise in baseball performance.

This actually begs the question concerning a great many individuals with voting responsibilities (that's not a snarky comment).

And frankly, receiving a ballot by definition makes one the arbiter of whether a player is deserving or not. It's a significant burden. Whether one agrees with Fay's actions or not (and I dont), I think its clear he made his decision with this burden in mind and was trying to fulfill his obligation to the best of his ability.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by Raisor

Raisor's new rule for Hall of Fame consideration: if you aren't good enough to get in on your first try, you aren t a Hall of Famer.

If you are a voter, and you think a player is a Hall of Famer, vote him in, don't make his wait out of some kind of caste system.

Trust me. Raisor is good. Raisor is wise. :O)

[Roy Tucker]

I just don't see how the HoF can set clear guidelines for PED use and non-use. It's about as muddy of an issue as you're ever going to see.

What would those clear guidelines be?

[757690]

Originally Posted by Kc61

This is exactly why Fay did the correct thing.

What is he supposed to do with "smoke" providing speculation or innuendo that somebody used PEDs?

Is Fay supposed to be the judge and jury as to whether somebody used PEDs based on public speculation?

Fay is a baseball writer. He has expertise in baseball performance. He is not an expert on PED use. He is not a judge and jury as to whether each candidate used. He has no way of evaluating how much PEDs influenced a particular player's performance.

I don't know how any individual sportswriter can deal with all these issues fairly. At minimum, the Hall must set out clear guidelines concerning PEDs and how they should be considered (or not considered) in the voting process.

We are all intelligent human beings with the ability to use logic and reason. That's all that is needed to make an acceptable decision on most matters.

No matter how thorough, rational and logical anyone is, they are going to be players who used PED's who get into the HOF, because they hid it well and were smart enough to not get caught. That is not a reason to include those who we know did use PED's to achieve their HOF numbers in the HOF. Just because we can't catch every criminal doesn't mean we shouldn't put anyone in jail.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by Roy Tucker

I just don't see how the HoF can set clear guidelines for PED use and non-use. It's about as muddy of an issue as you're ever going to see.

What would those clear guidelines be?

Simple. Remove the character clause. Have it be on stats alone. However they were obtained. If MLB rules the guy eligible, just go by the stats. If he's done something so bad that it makes his stats unusable, it's up to MLB to remove him from eligibility.

[Roy Tucker]

Originally Posted by 757690

We are all intelligent human beings with the ability to use logic and reason. That's all that is needed to make an acceptable decision on most matters.

No matter how thorough, rational and logical anyone is, they are going to be players who used PED's who get into the HOF, because they hid it well and were smart enough to not get caught. That is not a reason to include those who we know did use PED's to achieve their HOF numbers in the HOF. Just because we can't catch every criminal doesn't mean we shouldn't put anyone in jail.

I agree.

Unless the HoF or MLB on Congress or someone sets up an in-depth multi-million dollar investigation into PED use staffed by medical experts and scientists and lawyers (and what a rat's nest that would be), the information we have now is pretty much all we are ever going to get.

If a baseball writer doesn't feel adequately equipped to make judgements on the complex issue of a ballplayer being in the HoF, well, OK. I'd say that that writer needs to step aside and give his slot to someone who does feel "comfortable" making the call.

Sometimes, decisions are hard. Sometimes, you don't have all the facts. Sometimes the morals and ethics are complex and confusing. But a lot of life decisions are like that. Either step up to the plate and take your cuts or else ask the coach to pinch hit for you.

[Roy Tucker]

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

Simple. Remove the character clause. Have it be on stats alone. However they were obtained. If MLB rules the guy eligible, just go by the stats. If he's done something so bad that it makes his stats unusable, it's up to MLB to remove him from eligibility.

I think its safe to say there was considerable steroid use in MLB the last 20+ years. Are you saying we turn a blind eye to that?

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by Roy Tucker

I think its safe to say there was considerable steroid use in MLB the last 20+ years. Are you saying we turn a blind eye to that?

Longer, Tom Houseman used and states that steroids were around during his career, 1971-1978.

Then of course there's this article from 1969

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...2583/index.htm

High Time To Make Some Rules
With the help of his doctor and his conscience, the average citizen makes most of his own decisions about drugs. But the athlete, a participant in organized games, cannot be permitted this luxury. If the pleasures of competition and joys of victory are worth keeping, sport must realize that it is HIGH TIME TO MAKE SOME RULES

We have turned a blind eye to it, for most of our lives, probably all of our lives if we include Red Juice and post WW2 Dexedrine use

[Strikes Out Looking]

If I had a vote, I wouldn't vote for those known to have taken PEDs.
If I had a vote, I wouldn't vote in Rose. He violated a simple baseball rule.
If any PED users or known gamblers are going in, first Joe Jackson should be put in.

John Fay really shouldn't have a vote, even if he is classified by some as a "baseball writer."

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by Roy Tucker

I think its safe to say there was considerable steroid use in MLB the last 20+ years. Are you saying we turn a blind eye to that?

Yes. If they're in already, so be it. If MLB has decided to look the other way (as they have thus far), then so be it. The damage is done, no amount of fiddling with things is going to change that. The players who did cheat have inflated numbers, the players who didn't cheat have deflated numbers (facing juiced pitchers or pitchers facing juiced batters). I think the only reasonable option is to put players into the Hall based on the numbers alone because we'll never be able to remove the steroid factor from the equation. Now going forward, if MLB punishes a player by banning him....then exclude him from the ballot. (but I'm really not fond of that idea. I think if their numbers warrant admission, then admit them with some statements condemning their actions)

Simply put, I can't see any other reasonable way to deal with the hall. If you start excluding players based on suspicion where does the line get drawn? If you start excluding players who were found guilty but MLB still decides that their numbers stand, where do we draw that line? Simply take that emotional aspect OUT of the voting.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by Strikes Out Looking

If I had a vote, I wouldn't vote for those known to have taken PEDs.

So how would you vote for guys who don't have stat lines as high as they should be due to the juiced competition they were facing?

If I had a vote, I wouldn't vote in Rose. He violated a simple baseball rule.

True. But I really think people are putting too much of a connection between MLB and the HoF. They're separate entities. Banishment from baseball means MLB doesn't want him in the organization and doesn't want to tarnish anything worse moving forward. The HoF can't ignore the game's history, that's what it's purpose IS. It can't (or shouldn't) decide what part of the game's history should be ignored. State the facts and let the visitors decide for themselves what they think of that part of the game's history.

If any PED users or known gamblers are going in, first Joe Jackson should be put in.

Agreed.

John Fay really shouldn't have a vote, even if he is classified by some as a "baseball writer."

Is he a poor writer? Sure. But there are worse out there. And despite what we may think of him, he is knowledgeable about the game. He does take it seriously, he's just not as talented as others. Replacement level beat writer. :O)

[marcshoe]

I have no problem with what Fay did.

By not sending in a ballot naming a few people he considers less deserving than Bonds or Clemons, he's not actually voting against them, as he would be otherwise doing. he seems to realize, to paraphrase someone recently elected to another Hall, that by choosing not to decide he's still made a choice. I actually applaud his actions.

[Roy Tucker]

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

I think the only reasonable option is to put players into the Hall based on the numbers alone because we'll never be able to remove the steroid factor from the equation.

I think this is the nut of the issue here. Either we do just say "oh well, we didn't catch them, let them in" or "these look like inflated numbers to me". And, like with a lot of other things in life, the truth lies somewhere in-between. Which makes it a very difficult call.

I don't have a great issue with letting superstar guys highly suspected of using PEDs. Guys like Bonds or Clemons were going to be in. PEDs gave them cartoonish numbers but they were damn good anyhow. Guys like Palmeiro or Sosa or McGuire, weeellllll, in my opinion, I think PEDs boosted them to HoF levels of numbers. I'd give a skunk eye to them. Guys like Fred McGriff are difficult calls too. You evaluate them on a one-by-one basis and make your best stab at it.

My hope for the voting is that enough writers vote what their opinions are on these issues based on the information and somehow out of the mess, a consensus appears. Messy and not definitive, yeah. But I don't see any relealistic and practical solutions out there.

[M2]

This is what happens when sub-mediocre writers like John Fay get a ballot mailed to them: they get all wrapped up in their personal incompetence.

I kind of applaud the instinct of some writers to take the decision out of their hands. They're no good at this and never have been. Still, Fay's got no excuse for not having sorted out whether he thinks Bonds and Clemens deserve induction, other than he's not a terribly bright or capable guy.

I still think there should be a HOF Supreme Court and there should be televised cases for and against everyone on the ballot.

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by Roy Tucker

I just don't see how the HoF can set clear guidelines for PED use and non-use. It's about as muddy of an issue as you're ever going to see.

What would those clear guidelines be?

The guidelines would address the following factors:

1. Whether PED use is a pertinent factor.

2. Whether speculation about PED use (as opposed to clear information) should be considered.

3. Possibly a statement by the Hall as to the standard to be used in considering PED use. For example, a statement that PED use is only relevant if the voter has good reason to think that PEDs had a significant impact on performance.

These are not exhaustive. There are many approaches the Hall can take to bring more clarity to this subject. I think voters would welcome these guidelines.

As to the comment by a poster that all this requires is "logic and reason" I completely and entirely disagree. This is an issue of science and, in some cases, an issue of evidence.

If I were a player, I wouldn't want a major league beat writer deciding if I used PEDs and what impact PEDs might have had on my career. The least the Hall can do is address the issue for its voters in some manner.