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

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by MikeThierry

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

I do wonder though, is the reason nobody cares about the NBA or NFL Hall of Fame precisely because of the lack of public debate. By and large, all the deserving people get in and those that don't, don't. Could making the election process more rational actually lessen interest in the institution?

[MikeThierry]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

I do wonder though, is the reason nobody cares about the NBA or NFL Hall of Fame precisely because of the lack of public debate. By and large, all the deserving people get in and those that don't, don't. Could making the election process more rational actually lessen interest in the institution?

I think part of it is that with the NFL particularly, numbers do not tell the whole story where as in baseball, stats are king. A .300 hitter is considered a top hitter in 1900 as it is today. A 1000 yard rusher isn't the same in the 1950's vs. today, at least when it comes to impact. The numbers are just harder to quantify and it's probably why you don't get the kind of passionate debate in the NFL as you do in the MLB. Because numbers are king in baseball, I still think there will be interest in baseball.

Plus, determining positions like offensive linemen are not only difficult because there's not stats behind it but it's not really a "sexy" debate so to speak. Every position in baseball has a stat to it in which you can determine if that player was dominant or not. That isn't the same in the NFL.

I don't watch the NBA so I can't give you an answer on that.

EDIT: On a whole, I would rather have less public interest in the MLB HOF if that means voters get it right rather than the BS we have going on now. I'll sacrifice popularity if it saves what little sanity I have left, lol.

[MikeThierry]

One other thought on this is that baseball is American history. It's been in the fabric of America since the Civil War when it's popularity spread due to soldiers playing it everywhere. Baseball players were the first famous athletes in America. There is a rich history there. The NFL is the most popular sport in America but it really didn't overtake baseball and other sports until the late 70's. We didn't see Ty Cobb play but he was widely known and is still widely known. Most people can't even give you 20 players that played profession football in the 1950's. That's another reason why you don't get the same kind of discussion in the NFL HOF voting.

[mbgrayson]

Interesting blog article comparing and contrasting amphetamine and steroid use HERE. Food for thought...

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well, their criteria for acceptance is stricter than many organizations. That said, even if you cover the game consistently now, some younger writers are voting for guys they never saw play professionally. So it kind of cuts both ways.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

I do wonder though, is the reason nobody cares about the NBA or NFL Hall of Fame precisely because of the lack of public debate. By and large, all the deserving people get in and those that don't, don't. Could making the election process more rational actually lessen interest in the institution?

Voting on an OL to make it into the HoF would be an interesting process that I am sure wouldn't be very easy.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by westofyou

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

I wonder how much of an effect it had on the game back then. I would guess steroids, while around for a while, likely didn't distort the game to the level that we experienced in the 90s-00s until the experts understood how to maximize the benefits. The use of steroids 40 years ago vs what we saw more recently were likely two completely different animals.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

I wonder how much of an effect it had on the game back then. I would guess steroids, while around for a while, likely didn't distort the game to the level that we experienced in the 90s-00s until the experts understood how to maximize the benefits. The use of steroids 40 years ago vs what we saw more recently were likely two completely different animals.

Bravo... of course it doesn't matter because you can't quantify it today.

So just act like the games only been sullied in the past decade.

Just like Fay and all the other voting martyrs.

[Always Red]

Originally Posted by westofyou

Bravo... of course it doesn't matter because you can't quantify it today.

So just act like the games only been sullied in the past decade.

Just like Fay and all the other voting martyrs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/20/op...fets.html?_r=0

In 1961, during his home run race with Roger Maris, Mickey Mantle developed a sudden abscess that kept him on the bench. It came from an infected needle used by Max Jacobson, a quack who injected Mantle with a home-brew containing steroids and speed. In his autobiography, Hank Aaron admitted once taking an amphetamine tablet during a game. The Pirates’ John Milner testified at a drug dealer’s trial that his teammate, Willie Mays, kept “red juice,” a liquid form of speed, in his locker. (Mays denied it.) After he retired, Sandy Koufax admitted the he was often “half high” on the mound from the drugs he took for his ailing left arm.

For decades, baseball beat writers — the Hall of Fame’s designated electoral college — shielded the players from scrutiny. When the Internet (and exposés by two former ballplayers, Jim Bouton and Jose Canseco) allowed fans to see what was really happening, the baseball writers were revealed as dupes or stooges. In a rage, they formed a posse to drive the drug users out of the game.

But today’s superstars have lawyers and a union. They know how to use the news media. And they have plenty of money. The only way to punish them is to deny them a place in Cooperstown. The punishment has already been visited on Mark McGwire, and many more are on deck.

Max (Mantle's quack) was better known as "Dr. Feelgood" back in the day.

[westofyou]

Don Drysdale said he did so many painkillers in 1968 that the scoreboard was unreadable.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by westofyou

Bravo... of course it doesn't matter because you can't quantify it today.

So just act like the games only been sullied in the past decade.

Just like Fay and all the other voting martyrs.

If you can't distinguish what we saw in the steroid era versus the rest of the history of the game then that is too bad. If there were players who were enhancing their performance prior to the 80s, and their very likely was, it was mostly a rounding error compared to our friends Barry, Sammy, Roger, Mark and the rest of them.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by westofyou

Don Drysdale said he did so many painkillers in 1968 that the scoreboard was unreadable.

You post that all the time, but I'm not sure how that is related to this discussion. Did it get him on the field when he likely shouldnt or couldnt have? Probably. Did it allow him to post video game numbers? Probably not.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

You post that all the time, but I'm not sure how that is related to this discussion. Did it get him on the field when he likely shouldnt or couldnt have? Probably. Did it allow him to post video game numbers? Probably not.

58 straight scoreless innings

So short answer is yes

Waiting for the next goal post move

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

If you can't distinguish what we saw in the steroid era versus the rest of the history of the game then that is too bad. If there were players who were enhancing their performance prior to the 80s, and their very likely was, it was mostly a rounding error compared to our friends Barry, Sammy, Roger, Mark and the rest of them.

Hal Morris used how'd that work for him?

Seems to me you are the one who only wants to see it one way, and that's too bad

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by westofyou

58 straight scoreless innings

So short answer is yes

Waiting for the next goal post move

That 58 inning sample? If the painkillers were solely behind that, I wonder why he wasn't posting similar numbers his whole career.