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

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Kc61

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.

The most meaningful thing the HOF could do to protect the sanctity of it's mission would be to significantly reform how it chooses who gets to vote in the first place.

[marcshoe]

Perhaps all writers who wrote columns praising PED-enhanced players when they really should have known should forfeit their voting rights.

[Roy Tucker]

Originally Posted by Kc61

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.

These would be good and helpful. I could agree to something like this.

MLB also may want to look at the NFL's selection procedure. It seems more interactive. I'd think an official debate over candidates amongst the voters would be good.

http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/selectionprocess.aspx

[mth123]

Originally Posted by 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.

At least that would make better programming than that nutty show with Kevin Millar.

[Team Clark]

Anyone who abstains for reasons other than there are not good HOF candidates should have their vote taken away. Fay is a marginal writer at best and this little stunt further proves his lack of value to his craft.

[Strikes Out Looking]

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

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?

Who exactly are you asking about? If I was voting this year I'd vote for Jack Morris.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Team Clark

Anyone who abstains for reasons other than there are not good HOF candidates should have their vote taken away. Fay is a marginal writer at best and this little stunt further proves his lack of value to his craft.

That doesn't make sense. If there aren't any good HOF candidates, that's the reason you mail in a blank ballot with no one selected.

Fay isn't abstaining from voting anyone. He's abstaining for even participating in the vote. And he's not alone as several others are doing the same.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by westofyou

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

Comparing uppers and steroids is like comparing the guy who cheated by glancing at someone's paper to someone who cheated by having copies of every test.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by Strikes Out Looking

Who exactly are you asking about? If I was voting this year I'd vote for Jack Morris.

Nobody in particular. I'm saying, the players who are considered "borderline" hall of famers right now, what if they're "borderline" because they were facing juiced competition and weren't able to put up higher numbers? Most times in these discussions, people only look at it from one perspective. They see the juicers and their boosted numbers. What they're not seeing is that the non-juicers during that same time frame have DEFLATED numbers. Ken Griffey Jr for example...odds are quite good that he was facing pitchers who were juicing. If they weren't, his numbers would be better...right? Obviously Jr. isn't a borderline caliber player, but I'm just trying to show my point. Look at some of the pitchers in that era. Mike Mussina, Matt Morris, Hideo Nomo are 3 pitchers who become hall eligible in 2014. They pitched in the steroid era. If they're facing juiced batters, they're more likely to give up more dingers, have higher ERA's and more losses. I'm not pointing fingers, just saying that it cuts both ways.

And like I was saying, you can't vote for JUST Jack Morris. You have to vote for every player (yes or no) on the ballot. If you only vote for Morris, you're voting NO for every OTHER player.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

Comparing uppers and steroids is like comparing the guy who cheated by glancing at someone's paper to someone who cheated by having copies of every test.

pretending to be an authority on a shadow science is equally disheartening

[757690]

Originally Posted by westofyou

pretending to be an authority on a shadow science is equally disheartening

We have overwhelming evidence that the use of steroids had a significant effect on players production. We have no such evidence on the effect of greenies. It doesn't take a rocket or biological scientist to understand the difference between the two. In fact, I'm pretty sure even an MLB player understands the difference with great clarity.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by 757690

We have overwhelming evidence that the use of steroids had a significant effect on players production. We have no such evidence on the effect of greenies. It doesn't take a rocket or biological scientist to understand the difference between the two. In fact, I'm pretty sure even an MLB player understands the difference with great clarity.

No studies on performance and speed?

The army must have some numbers, citing on it, plus lets not discount the users from the 70s on

We can just guess who they were like we do today

George Foster anyone?

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by 757690

We have overwhelming evidence that the use of steroids had a significant effect on players production. We have no such evidence on the effect of greenies. It doesn't take a rocket or biological scientist to understand the difference between the two. In fact, I'm pretty sure even an MLB player understands the difference with great clarity.

Uh, amphetamines absolutely boost performance.

[757690]

Originally Posted by westofyou

No studies on performance and speed?

The army must have some numbers, citing on it, plus lets not discount the users from the 70s on

We can just guess who they were like we do today

George Foster anyone?

Absolutely no evidence it helped anyone play baseball better. In fact, based on what we do know about it, it's likely that using amphetamines hurts your overall baseball performance, as it causes one to become shakey and clouds the mind. Also if baseball performance did increase by using amphetamines, and everyone was using them, then why didn't numbers improve during the 70's, like they did in the 90's and 00's?

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Uh, amphetamines absolutely boost performance.

In your opinion, do you think that they boost anywhere near what steroids and steroid like substances do?