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

[kaldaniels]

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.

And the Enquirer is under no contractual obligation to keep a lazy journalist who doesn't play the social media game. Fay doesn't get brownie points for doing so.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

What makes you think GF was a roid head?

I don't but using some of the criteria folks use against some players today could be applied to the players in the 70s

It was there, they were doing it

Get out the assumption glasses, find those who are most likely.

Same result... Paralyzed voters, pointing fingers

[George Anderson]

Fay belongs to the same group of voters who over the years have given players like Mike Krukow and Jim Deshaies HOF votes. To many writers are simply clueless or don't take their responsibilities very serious. I am not saying Fay is or is not clueless in this instance but I would very much like to see the induction process changed.

[MikeThierry]

As some has pointed out here, there needs to be stronger guidelines when it comes to criteria for some of these players. In a recent article Joe Strauss wrote for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, he brought up this point which makes this whole voting issue a bit murky. He said that when people vote, they have to take into account the Baseball HOF "character clause". Strauss goes onto say that this ecompasses "record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the team(s) on which the player played". I have no love for some of these writers that grandstand and do their mini-version of the Spanish Inquisition. However I can see where some voters will have trouble determining who should be in or not based on the character clause. As maddening as Fay's stance might be to people, I'm not going to criticize him too much over it.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

I agree completely. The damage is done. The bottom line point is this. At the end of the day, we remember what actually happened. Having a history museum that leaves giant, gaping holes in our collective record does nothing to enhance our celebration of the game. A Hall of Fame that has all of the game's best players, some of whom were liars and cheats, is a better institution than one that has just some of the game's best players, some of whom prior to 1990 were liars and cheats and none of whom after then were ever caught. Just trying (and failing) to explain it succinctly serves to make the point.

YEa, I pretty much agree with what you say.. If the HOF ignores maybe 5 of the biggest stars of the Steroid era, it is pretty inconsistent.
I also agree with the entire point that "cheating" is kind of a grey area, since the owners ignored it for so long. For all we know, the teams might've been helping the roid users. There was a trainer on one team who said something to the point of "Well, we don't encourage PED use, but if a player decides to use them, we will do all we can to help them..." I'm not saying the team trainer shouldn't help them, but there was definitely a permissive attitude towards it..

And yes, the whole HOF voting process is terribly flawed and inconsistent. One of the reasons that I really don't take it seriously any more.

[REDREAD]

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.

The other thing they could do.. if you fail a certain number of PED tests, you are automatically ineligible for the HOF. Heck, they could expand that list to several drugs. If they really want to be moral about it, the HOF can have a panel for cases like Clemens (as I recall, he never failed a test, but there's evidence to suggest he did use it). Anyhow, the point is that the HOF can set some kind of criteria and if there's too much PED/drug use, just not put the guy on the ballot.
It will never happen though, the HOF would not want to risk backlash (They are a tourist destination).. They want the writers to do their dirty work for them and not have to deal with it.

Another thing that bothers me a little bit. Let's say enough writers keep Bonds out. There's a lot of other supsicious players that may have used PEDs but were never caught.. I hate to say this.. but look at Nolan Ryan.. He had an unprecedented level of performance after 40 (probably a better late career than Clemens).. was he a freak of nature or a PED user? I guess there's no way to know, so we have to presume innocence..

[MikeThierry]

For my money (all $1 of it), the NFL has it right when it comes to HOF voting. How they vote is they get 32 guys in a room that debate the worthiness of a player for days. They put era into perspective and people are accountable for their opinions.

The thing I absolutely hate about the MLB HOF vote is that people can become a member even if they don't even follow a sport. As Bernie Miklasz from the St. Louis Post and 101.1 ESPN has pointed out, you have some MLB HOF voters voting on players where all they did was write a small article 40 years ago about baseball. You just don't really see the critical thinking from the hundreds of MLB voters that you do in the NFL.

[westofyou]

Is anything as meaningless and a non story as the NFL HOF?

[MikeThierry]

Originally Posted by westofyou

Is anything as meaningless and a non story as the NFL HOF?

Yet the process for players getting in is 100% better than the MLB HOF...

[757690]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

YEa, I pretty much agree with what you say.. If the HOF ignores maybe 5 of the biggest stars of the Steroid era, it is pretty inconsistent.
I also agree with the entire point that "cheating" is kind of a grey area, since the owners ignored it for so long. For all we know, the teams might've been helping the roid users. There was a trainer on one team who said something to the point of "Well, we don't encourage PED use, but if a player decides to use them, we will do all we can to help them..." I'm not saying the team trainer shouldn't help them, but there was definitely a permissive attitude towards it..

And yes, the whole HOF voting process is terribly flawed and inconsistent. One of the reasons that I really don't take it seriously any more.

The MLB HOF is full of Clemens, Bonds, McGwire Etc, right now and always will be. They aren't ignored. The only issue is whether they deserve their own plaque.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by PuffyPig

But each is cheating.

Different punishments for different crimes.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

I hate to say this.. but look at Nolan Ryan.. He had an unprecedented level of performance after 40 (probably a better late career than Clemens).. was he a freak of nature or a PED user? I guess there's no way to know, so we have to presume innocence..

He was a freak of nature and an absolute workout junkie.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

He was a freak of nature and an absolute workout junkie.

There were a few workout junkies and freaks of nature who ended up being users.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by MikeThierry

Yet the process for players getting in is 100% better than the MLB HOF...

Tell that to Alex Karras

[MikeThierry]

Originally Posted by westofyou

Tell that to Alex Karras

mehh... snubs happen in every sport. I just think it's better with a group of 32 people who do their research making a case for player A than people voting for the Hall of Fame who don't even cover baseball on a regular basis.