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

[757690]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Uh, amphetamines absolutely boost performance.

Where's the evidence?

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by westofyou

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

Not sure that I ever claimed to be an authority. Just a reasonable person.

[Wonderful Monds]

Originally Posted by 757690

Where's the evidence?

Have you ever taken amphetamines?


Over the grind of a long season, having the sharpness that an amphetamine gives you would be a huge advantage.

[jojo]

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.

What you think you know is the effect of a confluence of cutting edge nutrition, cutting edge training, PEDS, expansion, and offensive environments.

Either PEDS are bad or not and a misty-eyed, nostalgic forgiveness of previous eras' sins doesn't justify acting like modern era PEDS users have crossed a line that is anything other than purely arbitrary. Either voters are going to protect the sanctity of historical truth or they are in actuality fiction writers.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by 757690

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?

I can attest that focus doesn't vanish when one takes speed, as for numbers the rise of speed in the game coincided with the Mantle, Aaron, Mays era, incredible seasons of 300 ip by numerous guys.

Lots if strange stuff going on in that era

Like every other era too

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by jojo

What you think you know is the effect of a confluence of cutting edge nutrition, cutting edge training, PEDS, expansion, and offensive environments.

PEDs are the only thing (hypothetically) not still around today from that list. Ironically video game like statistics aren't as popular either.

[757690]

Originally Posted by westofyou

I can attest that focus doesn't vanish when one takes speed, as for numbers the rise of speed in the game coincided with the Mantle, Aaron, Mays era, incredible seasons of 300 ip by numerous guys.

Lots if strange stuff going on in that era

Like every other era too

Amphetamines effect everyone differently. Most players currently are taking drugs that are used for ADHD. If most children without ADHD take these drugs, they become super hyper and lose focus in their studies. The exact opposite happens to those that take the drugs and do have ADHD.

Again, there are plenty of studies on the use of amphetamines and its effects on those who use them. I personally don't know of any on the effect it has on baseball players. I'm not saying they don't effect baseball performance, just that there is no evidence that they do.

[CySeymour]

PEd's help you workout more when combined with proper nutrition. They are not magic candy.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by 757690

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?

You do realize my Foster reference was pointing at steroid use in his case not greenies

[Strikes Out Looking]

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

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.

They way I understand it is that a voter gets to vote for 10 players to go in the HOF. If I was a voter the only one I would vote for this year would probably be Morris, maybe Biggio. If I had to check no on all the others I would.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by westofyou

You do realize my Foster reference was pointing at steroid use in his case not greenies

What makes you think GF was a roid head?

[lidspinner]

I am a Fay fan...I think he does a great job and he tries his best to interact with the fans when he really has no contractual obligation to do so....talking with fans via social media cannot be on his list of favorite things to do yet he does it everyday of the season....or most everyday.....

with that said, JF needs to realize that he has an obligation to the fans being a HOF voter, and that obligation is to help vote players into the HOF that he thinks deserve to be in there....if he is not sure if they deserve to be in or not then just dont vote on those players, its not like this is the only year they will be on the ballot.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by lidspinner

I am a Fay fan...I think he does a great job and he tries his best to interact with the fans when he really has no contractual obligation to do so....talking with fans via social media cannot be on his list of favorite things to do yet he does it everyday of the season....or most everyday.....

with that said, JF needs to realize that he has an obligation to the fans being a HOF voter, and that obligation is to help vote players into the HOF that he thinks deserve to be in there....if he is not sure if they deserve to be in or not then just dont vote on those players, its not like this is the only year they will be on the ballot.

But in his defense, things may become clearer in a year. The HoF might give them guidance. Something could happen.

[PuffyPig]

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.

But each is cheating.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by lidspinner

I am a Fay fan...I think he does a great job and he tries his best to interact with the fans when he really has no contractual obligation to do so....talking with fans via social media cannot be on his list of favorite things to do yet he does it everyday of the season....or most everyday.....

with that said, JF needs to realize that he has an obligation to the fans being a HOF voter, and that obligation is to help vote players into the HOF that he thinks deserve to be in there....if he is not sure if they deserve to be in or not then just dont vote on those players, its not like this is the only year they will be on the ballot.

He has no obligation to communicate with readers? He is a sportswriter. What the heck is his job description then?

A writer ALWAYS has an obligation to pander to his readers.