No one to the hall this year

[Johnny Footstool]

BTW - The HOF itself and the town of Cooperstown are the real losers here. Both rely heavily on the huge revenues generated by induction weekend.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by M2

I'm feeling sympathy for the Sammy of late. It seems pretty clear Piazza and Bagwell are eventually going to get in. Meanwhile Sosa's become a punching bag even though there's really nothing that implicates him as a juicer any more than those two. Supposedly Sosa was always a good guy to his teammates and fans. Basically he played hard, treated people with respect and had a good disposition.

And now everybody hates him. There's something really wrong with that.

?

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#story/...players-jun17/

[M2]

Originally Posted by Johnny Footstool

How is the greatest hitting catcher of all time not "elite"?

Well, you have to hit yourself in the head with a heavy, blunt object a few times while inhaling ammonia fumes, then sportswriter logic begins to make sense.

[M2]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

?

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#story/...players-jun17/

So a reaction article based on an unconfirmed allegation (which I believe the NY Times sports editor later admitted never should have been published) constitutes evidence for you?

To Frank Thomas' point, I also wouldn't be shocked if Frank Thomas' name came up in connection to PED use. The article posted about Piazza in this very thread is more damning than what you've got here about Sosa.

I'll say it again, what makes Sosa more guilty than Piazza or Bagwell? Show me the hard evidence. Because they're getting in to Cooperstown while Sammy's only getting reviled.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by M2

So a reaction article based on an unconfirmed allegation (which I believe the NY Times sports editor later admitted never should have been published) constitutes evidence for you?

To Frank Thomas' point, I also wouldn't be shocked if Frank Thomas' name came up in connection to PED use. The article posted about Piazza in this very thread is more damning than what you've got here about Sosa.

I'll say it again, what makes Sosa more guilty than Piazza or Bagwell? Show me the hard evidence. Because they're getting in to Cooperstown while Sammy's only getting reviled.

There is a difference between "nothing that implicates him" and hard evidence.

[Superdude]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

I, for one, am just not a big fan of 'guilty until proven innocent'. If you failed a test like Rafael Palmiero, that's a big strike against you. Otherwise, just vote based on what is known.

I completely agree. I understand the dilemma, but the 'guilty until proven innocent' stance is just totally impracticable in every way. I think they'll take their noble stand for a few more years until one alleged user gets voted in and opens the floodgates.

[M2]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

There is a difference between "nothing that implicates him" and evidence.

Fair enough (though I said "nothing that implicates him more than"), his name came up in a discredited story purporting to out those who failed the anonymous 2003 test.

So there is a vague implication, and while he very well might be guilty of juicing (wouldn't shock me), his guilt is assumed while Piazza and Bagwell (both of whom have found themselves squarely in Jeff Pearlman's sites) are eventually getting into the Hall.

I'm not saying Sosa is innocent. My point is that he's getting screwed by a patently uneven set of voting standards.

[vaticanplum]

Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966

Can it be proven (writers knew)? It is a two-way street though. Perhaps the writers did not know during those players' careers (do you have proof that says otherwise, if so please share). Of course we all hear the defenders of these players say there is no proof that they did PEDs. You say the writers knew at the time. But many fellow defenders of these players say there is no proof. Can "the defenders" have it both ways?!?

But letting the writers decide these things has always been a bad idea IMO.

Well, I agree with you on the last point.

Earlier in this thread, you stated that "Perhaps the Union (who did all it could to avoid testing) and their teams (do not insult my intelligence by claiming they knew nothing)..." So you'll take it for granted that the Union and owners -- whose job it is to protect the players and their teams, respectively -- knew what was going on, but defend the writers -- whose job it is to report the truth -- on grounds of ignorance?

I am not saying that all writers knew what was going on, and I have no idea what kind of "proof" they had (I think that's moot, really, because I think most of them didn't even bother to pursue the story). And I am certainly not "defending" the players. I am speaking specifically to what I see as moral relativism and self-interest by the writers. Maybe they didn't all know, but there is no way -- no way -- that there wasn't a whiff enough of a story to pursue. There was enough of that whiff in public, among people with no access to the players. And no one was willing to do that in 1998, when McGwire and Sosa were saving baseball and making baseball journalism relevant again. No one was willing to do that, in fact, until there was a whipping boy or two that was a sure bet to sell some papers and the public got hungry for a new story. When it was clear that the public was willing to turn on certain players, then the journalists followed suit. It didn't happen the other way around. And it was clear that the public was going to turn on the players, because it's easier to turn on a well-known face and a hero than it is a faceless owner or a boring nebulous union. So that's what the writers went with.

I have mixed feelings about the HOF and I'm not even sure how I feel about certain people getting in. But the fact that these men have not been proven guilty of anything, that their whole careers went by without punishment, and now the writers of all people have anointed themselves as the ones to impose judgment and repercussions on them, because nobody else has found a way to do it legally...I think it's awful. It makes the Hall of Fame entry criteria even more ambiguous than it used to be (which I did not think possible). And that, frankly, makes the Hall of Fame kind of a joke.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by M2

Fair enough, his name came up in a discredited story purporting to out those who failed the anonymous 2003 test.

So there is a vague implication, and while he very well might be guilty of juicing (wouldn't shock me), his guilt is assumed while Piazza and Bagwell, who are no more innocent or guilty based on available evidence, are eventually getting into the Hall.

I'm not saying Sosa is innocent. My point is that he's getting screwed by a patently uneven set of voting standards.

Discredited is another strong term. This is the same test which forced ARod to come clean. There is some credit to the report. Which, to me, makes the case stronger against him that the other 2. Even though I have my own view of some others.

[edabbs44]

Since the topic is still relatively new and additional info has a fairly good chance to come out, I wonder if the voters are just delaying the decision until there is a better view. It would be a bad scene if they vote player X in and he is exposed 6 months later.

[Red in Chicago]

Originally Posted by M2

I'm feeling sympathy for the Sammy of late. It seems pretty clear Piazza and Bagwell are eventually going to get in. Meanwhile Sosa's become a punching bag even though there's really nothing that implicates him as a juicer any more than those two. Supposedly Sosa was always a good guy to his teammates and fans. Basically he played hard, treated people with respect and had a good disposition.

And now everybody hates him. There's something really wrong with that.

Not everyone loved Sammy in Chicago. He wore out his welcome. His bunny hopping, self indulgent behavior wore thin in the clubhouse. Add to that his walking out on the last game of the year and corked bat incident, he was far from the patron saint some of the bleacher bums thought he was. I would say his pathetic appearance before congress played the biggest role in keeping his vote count so low. No sympathy from me - my least favorite Cub of all time.

[Superdude]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

Since the topic is still relatively new and additional info has a fairly good chance to come out, I wonder if the voters are just delaying the decision until there is a better view. It would be a bad scene if they vote player X in and he is exposed 6 months later.

A better view about hearsay and rumors of stuff that happened behind closed doors years ago? I don't see how time is gonna clear up much of anything if that's what they're hoping for.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by Superdude

A better view about hearsay and rumors of stuff that happened behind closed doors years ago? I don't see how time is gonna clear up much of anything if that's what they're hoping for.

They have 15 years to elect them. That's a long time.

[George Anderson]

Originally Posted by Johnny Footstool

How is the greatest hitting catcher of all time not "elite"?

His hitting was elite but his defense was anything but.

It took Gary Carter six times till he got elected and Carlton Fisk two times. Piazza was not that much better than those if he was at all to warrant getting an honor they did not.

[Superdude]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

They have 15 years to elect them. That's a long time.

It is a long time, but I just see the whole problem as pervasive to the point that it's virtually unknowable. They're pretty much always running the risk of allegations post election no matter how long they wait.