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

[PuffyPig]

Originally Posted by oneupper

Whatever Bonds was doing he should have patented it.

It's already patented, as are all major drugs.

[RedsBaron]

I sometimes believe that a lot of commentators need to visit the Hall of Fame. I have been watching "Mike and Mike In The Morning" this morning. I really like the show. This morning Greenberg is there with Herman Edwards sitting in for Golic. Greenie and Edwards started repeating the claim that the failure to induct suspected PEDS users means that the HOF will totally ignore the steroids era.
This claim is utterly absolutely untrue. If Bonds, Clemens, et al, never get plaques in Cooperstown this does not necessarily mean their career accomplishments will not be documented in the HOF.
Pete Rose is not in the HOF. Rosie's career is documented in the HOF (I was there last July). Rose's BRM uniform, his bat and other artifacts are displayed. His career and the history of the BRM are both told. All that is missing is a HOF plaque for Rose. This is quite similar to the situation at the Reds Hall of Fame.
People can certainly debate if possible PEDs users should be inducted into the HOF. I continue to believe that Bonds and Clemens will eventually get in, although it may take longer than I earlier believed. However it is not necessary to give them a ceremony and a plaque to tell the histories of their careers in Cooperstown.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by RedsBaron

I sometimes believe that a lot of commentators need to visit the Hall of Fame. I have been watching "Mike and Mike In The Morning" this morning. I really like the show. This morning Greenberg is there with Herman Edwards sitting in for Golic. Greenie and Edwards started repeating the claim that the failure to induct suspected PEDS users means that the HOF will totally ignore the steroids era.
This claim is utterly absolutely untrue. If Bonds, Clemens, et al, never get plaques in Cooperstown this does not necessarily mean their career accomplishments will not be documented in the HOF.
Pete Rose is not in the HOF. Rosie's career is documented in the HOF (I was there last July). Rose's BRM uniform, his bat and other artifacts are displayed. His career and the history of the BRM are both told. All that is missing is a HOF plaque for Rose. This is quite similar to the situation at the Reds Hall of Fame.
People can certainly debate if possible PEDs users should be inducted into the HOF. I continue to believe that Bonds and Clemens will eventually get in, although it may take longer than I earlier believed. However it is not necessary to give them a ceremony and a plaque to tell the histories of their careers in Cooperstown.

What is the argument for keeping Bonds and Clemens out of the hall of fame?

[RedsBaron]

Originally Posted by jojo

What is the argument for keeping Bonds and Clemens out of the hall of fame?

If you seriously want to know what are the arguments for keeping that duo out of the HOF then read the last 17 pages of this thread as well as countless other threads here. That was not the point of my last post. My point was to point out the fallacy of the argument that unless you give Bonds and Clemens a nice ceremony in Cooperstown one summer and present them with plaques then the museum in Cooperstown cannot tell the history of the game.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by RedsBaron

If you seriously want to know what are the arguments for keeping that duo out of the HOF then read the last 17 pages of this thread as well as countless other threads here. That was not the point of my last post. My point was to point out the fallacy of the argument that unless you give Bonds and Clemens a nice ceremony in Cooperstown one summer and present them with plaques then the museum in Cooperstown cannot tell the history of the game.

I'm specifically asking you to articulate your argument.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by RedsBaron

If you seriously want to know what are the arguments for keeping that duo out of the HOF then read the last 17 pages of this thread as well as countless other threads here. That was not the point of my last post. My point was to point out the fallacy of the argument that unless you give Bonds and Clemens a nice ceremony in Cooperstown one summer and present them with plaques then the museum in Cooperstown cannot tell the history of the game.

I agree.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by RedsBaron

If you seriously want to know what are the arguments for keeping that duo out of the HOF then read the last 17 pages of this thread as well as countless other threads here. That was not the point of my last post. My point was to point out the fallacy of the argument that unless you give Bonds and Clemens a nice ceremony in Cooperstown one summer and present them with plaques then the museum in Cooperstown cannot tell the history of the game.

If Bonds and Clemens are kept out of the HOF because of a PEDs rationale then the HOF can nolonger be considered an honest representation of the game's history because that argument implies player performance was not affected by PED use in other eras and it distorts the history of PEDs use in baseball in such a way as to whitewash the issues rather than move in a direction that more accurately reflects reality. The reality is that PEDs use and endemic cheating has been a significant part of the fabric of the game.

How the HOF choses to honor individual players speaks directly to it's ability to be a credible source concerning the history of the game-the institution calls itself the Hall of Fame so it is virtually impossible to separate who it honors on a plaque from it's historical vision-at least one certainly can't expect the average baseball fan to split those hairs.

If the Hall chooses to allow history to be whitewashed in it's most visible function, then it needs to change it's name to minimize the relevance of who it places on plaques. Perhaps it's best titled the "Professional Baseball Museum featuring the romantic musings of individuals who wrote about baseball at some point in their careers no matter how little they might have actually covered professional baseball"?

[Always Red]

I read this morning on si.com that the HoF is still "clean."

What a joke, as many have pointed out here throughout this thread.

Gaylord Perry made the HoF by being an admitted cheater; and we could go on and on about others. How is the HoF still "clean?" Part of the problem is perception as told to the masses by the media machines.

There is no answer to this quandry, no easy quick fix, as the sands are ever shifting. There is no way to say who is clean and who was "dirty", and it's been left up to the baseball sportswriters, of all people, to figure it out.

I don't have the answer, nor any solutions, and I respect John Fay for admitting the same. MLB needs to do something; it has to come from the top. It's a time for some leadership from the commissioner's office.

Arguable the best pitcher and best hitter I have ever seen are denied entrance to the HoF. I don't blame the sportswriters, I blame Clemens and Bonds, as they have specifically been implicated.

The problem, as we saw yesterday, is that other players have been painted guilty with that broad brush, caught up in that huge fish net. Collateral damage. It's not right, and it needs to be fixed.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by Always Red

I read this morning on si.com that the HoF is still "clean."

What a joke, as many have pointed out here throughout this thread.

Gaylord Perry made the HoF by being an admitted cheater; and we could go on and on about others. How is the HoF still "clean?" Part of the problem is perception as told to the masses by the media machines.

There is no answer to this quandry, no easy quick fix, as the sands are ever shifting. There is no way to say who is clean and who was "dirty", and it's been left up to the baseball sportswriters, of all people, to figure it out.

I don't have the answer, nor any solutions, and I respect John Fay for admitting the same. MLB needs to do something; it has to come from the top. It's a time for some leadership from the commissioner's office.

Arguable the best pitcher and best hitter I have ever seen are denied entrance to the HoF. I don't blame the sportswriters, I blame Clemens and Bonds, as they have specifically been implicated.

The problem, as we saw yesterday, is that other players have been painted guilty with that broad brush, caught up in that huge fish net. Collateral damage. It's not right, and it needs to be fixed.

Who should be a first balloter that isn't? Craig Biggio? That's certainly debatable. I think you already conceded that Bonds and Clemens are getting what they deserve by their exclusion from the first ballot crowd. So who is left out as collateral damage?

[Always Red]

Originally Posted by traderumor

Who should be a first balloter that isn't? Craig Biggio? That's certainly debatable. I think you already conceded that Bonds and Clemens are getting what they deserve by their exclusion from the first ballot crowd. So who is left out as collateral damage?

I wasn't discussing first ballot HoF'ers.

To answer your question though, no one, as I don't think Piazza is a first ballot, but he does belong in the HoF. And he's already being accused because of acne on his back.

Biggio hasn't been accused (yet) and belongs in the HoF, but not a first ballot.

Just my opinion.

Walker, Bagwell, Raines and maybe Trammell. Trammell will have to wait until he's old and go in with Whitaker as old timers.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by jojo

If Bonds and Clemens are kept out of the HOF because of a PEDs rationale then the HOF can nolonger be considered an honest representation of the game's history because that argument implies player performance was not affected by PED use in other eras and it distorts the history of PEDs use in baseball in such a way as to whitewash the issues rather than move in a direction that more accurately reflects reality. The reality is that PEDs use and endemic cheating has been a significant part of the fabric of the game.

How the HOF choses to honor individual players speaks directly to it's ability to be a credible source concerning the history of the game-the institution calls itself the Hall of Fame so it is virtually impossible to separate who it honors on a plaque from it's historical vision-at least one certainly can't expect the average baseball fan to split those hairs.

If the Hall chooses to allow history to be whitewashed in it's most visible function, then it needs to change it's name to minimize the relevance of who it places on plaques. Perhaps it's best titled the "Professional Baseball Museum featuring the romantic musings of individuals who wrote about baseball at some point in their careers no matter how little they might have actually covered professional baseball"?

Only if one takes an ethical stance that "cheating" is "cheating" is "cheating," which is not a typical or healthy moral position.

I'm guessing that folks taking that stance also have a similar view on all drug use. Pot use is really no different than alcohol consumption than cocaine sniffing than crack smoking than crystal meth production, sale and use. Its all just under the category "altered state of consciousness and helping folks get there."

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by Always Red

I wasn't discussing first ballot HoF'ers.

To answer your question though, no one, as I don't think Piazza is a first ballot, but he does belong in the HoF. And he's already being accused because of acne on his back.

Biggio hasn't been accused (yet) and belongs in the HoF, but not a first ballot.

Just my opinion.

Walker, Bagwell, Raines and maybe Trammell. Trammell will have to wait until he's old and go in with Whitaker as old timers.

I think its a pretty large leap to say that no one got in because of Bonds and Clemens. It is certainly a valid position that, but for the PEDs issue, they may have been the only worthy inductees, all things considered. I limit it to a statement made against those two alone.

[Always Red]

Originally Posted by traderumor

I think its a pretty large leap to say that no one got in because of Bonds and Clemens. It is certainly a valid position that, but for the PEDs issue, they may have been the only worthy inductees, all things considered. I limit it to a statement made against those two alone.

My point is that because of Bonds, Clemens (because it's their first year of eligibility), McGwire, Sosa, and Palmeiro, many other deserving players have been tainted by the steroid issue. It was rampant during the era, some used, some didn't and there is no way to tell.

I'll throw it out there, how can anyone know FOR SURE that Ken Griffey, Jr and Barry Larkin never used a steroid, EVER, while playing MLB? There is simply no way to know.

[Always Red]

Originally Posted by traderumor

Who should be a first balloter that isn't? Craig Biggio? That's certainly debatable. I think you already conceded that Bonds and Clemens are getting what they deserve by their exclusion from the first ballot crowd. So who is left out as collateral damage?

The joke I was referring to is the quaint notion that the Hall of Fame is still "Clean."

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by Always Red

My point is that because of Bonds, Clemens (because it's their first year of eligibility), McGwire, Sosa, and Palmeiro, many other deserving players have been tainted by the steroid issue. It was rampant during the era, some used, some didn't and there is no way to tell.

I'll throw it out there, how can anyone know FOR SURE that Ken Griffey, Jr and Barry Larkin never used a steroid, EVER, while playing MLB? There is simply no way to know.

To your first part, we'll just have to disagree because we probably disagree on the "deserving" part.

On the second part, because there was no physical evidence of use, there is no anecdotal evidence of use, there is their own denials of use, there are other players' claiming they were clean.....unless you want them to prove a negative, which is patently unfair. Applying the duck test should give you a pretty good idea on identifying obvious users, whether the quack be stats, body mass, congressional testimony, one's own admission of guilt....

The problem is that folks do not want to even apply the duck test because "we don't really know who did and didn't." Can we at least agree that Sammy Sosa quacks like a duck because of physical appearance and stats? That Rafael Palmiero quacks by confession? That Barry Bonds big head quacks? That dozens upon dozens cranking balls out of stadiums with arms like Glenn Braggs didn't get that way naturally? Quack?