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

[westofyou]

Lot's of idiocy here:

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?...b&ymd=20130107


Except the guy with the hat that usually drives me batty

Tracy Ringolsby

Ballot: Bagwell, Biggio, Bonds, Clemens, Morris, Murphy, Piazza, Raines, Trammell, Larry Walker

Sad part of this year's Hall of Fame voting is it doesn't seem likely that any of the votes are going to really matter, because there is a segment of the voters with an axe to grind. They want to turn this year's vote into the baseball version of the Salem Witch Hunt. And they have not only indicted and convicted Bonds and Clemens of wrongdoing in their minds, but are so intent on their anger toward Bonds and Clemens they will take it out on others and turn in blank ballots. Election to the Hall of Fame requires a player to be listed on 75 percent of the ballots cast. A blank ballot is a vote for no one but has to be counted if it is submitted. Each voter who turns in a blank ballot is not only expressing displeasure toward Clemens and Bonds, but also hurting the candidacy of every other eligible player. Nobody ever questioned Murphy's character, but he will suffer more than anyone else from the blank ballots because this is his 15th and final year of eligibility. There is no next year for him, like there is for the other candidates. The outrage over PEDs is the in-thing, but it is so inconsistent. My biggest challenge this year was trimming my list of candidates to 10 players, with apologies to Smith.

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by Dom Heffner

Amphetamines didn't produce the offensive output we saw. Absolutley, positivley nothing of the sort.

To compare an "upper" with drugs that altered players physical appearance and increased muscle mass...you're not playing fair. Again, look at the number of 50 homer seasons during this era: more than all of baseball history combined. You used to blame the parks, pitching...funny, same parks, same pitching, not so many 50 homer seasons. Funny how that works out.

The question I have with people who feel - rhetorically or otherwise - that greenies users are tainted is where do you draw that line? Caffeine would be a stimulant albeit not as powerful. Now my research tells me that amphetamines were legal until 1965. After that they were only legal by prescription. I suppose one could stretch a point by saying if trainers and team doctors brought greenies into the locker room, that could be considered as legal.

I don't necessarily see greenies as "performance enhancing" but more as "performance normalization." Without greenies you might keep the bat on your shoulder for that 3rd strike or fail to get your normal jump on a ball hit your way. With greenies, you would perform how you would if you had your full 8 hours in your own bed.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Chip R

The question I have with people who feel - rhetorically or otherwise - that greenies users are tainted is where do you draw that line? Caffeine would be a stimulant albeit not as powerful. Now my research tells me that amphetamines were legal until 1965. After that they were only legal by prescription. I suppose one could stretch a point by saying if trainers and team doctors brought greenies into the locker room, that could be considered as legal.

I don't necessarily see greenies as "performance enhancing" but more as "performance normalization." Without greenies you might keep the bat on your shoulder for that 3rd strike or fail to get your normal jump on a ball hit your way. With greenies, you would perform how you would if you had your full 8 hours in your own bed.

I've always felt that things should be legal if their purpose is to guide in getting more consistent performance out of your existing potential. Energy drinks and other types of over the counter products simply help guide in reaching your existing talent level consistently.

Anything that gives you extra ability, such as HGH or other type of steroids, enhance your ability though. That's where I draw the line.

I think maximizing potential = OK. Increasing potential through substances = not OK.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Chip R

The question I have with people who feel - rhetorically or otherwise - that greenies users are tainted is where do you draw that line? Caffeine would be a stimulant albeit not as powerful. Now my research tells me that amphetamines were legal until 1965. After that they were only legal by prescription. I suppose one could stretch a point by saying if trainers and team doctors brought greenies into the locker room, that could be considered as legal.

I don't necessarily see greenies as "performance enhancing" but more as "performance normalization." Without greenies you might keep the bat on your shoulder for that 3rd strike or fail to get your normal jump on a ball hit your way. With greenies, you would perform how you would if you had your full 8 hours in your own bed.

With steroids you would recover quicker so your fastball in your next appearance would most likely be the speed it would be if you weren't "fatigued"...

BTW, the difference between keeping your bat on your shoulder for a third strike or swinging could significantly impact the outcome, i.e. enhance performance artificially.

If greenies were kosher, then why couldn't steroids be kosher?

[jojo]

Originally Posted by traderumor

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

How is cheating to effect the outcome of a game not cheating? You'll need to draw the line with greater detail to successfully argue that there are degrees of PED (esepcially given the classes that we've discussed in this thread) use concerning the sanctity of the game.

Originally Posted by traderumor

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."

I would understand a graded scale based upon addictive properties but
I concede that it can be hypocrtical to act like everclear is benovelent but using pot requires ten years in jail when considering the effect alcoholism and drunkenness has on society. I don't think this is the best premise to base your argument upon.

[kaldaniels]

Greenies improved performance.
Steroids improved performance.

Is anyone arguing that their effects were equal?

Because while I see both sides of the debate, I can understand how one who views steroids as "more performance enhancing" believes that steroid users are unworthy of the Hall.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

Greenies improved performance.
Steroids improved performance.

Is anyone arguing that their effects were equal?

Because while I see both sides of the debate, I can understand how one who views steroids as "more performance enhancing" believes that steroid users are unworthy of the Hall.

Tommy John surgery approved performance, Durocher getting Van Lingo Mungo to dry out approved performance too.

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by jojo

With steroids you would recover quicker so your fastball in your next appearance would most likely be the speed it would be if you weren't "fatigued"...

Absolutely. But I'm just talking about stimulants.

BTW, the difference between keeping your bat on your shoulder for a third strike or swinging could significantly impact the outcome, i.e. enhance performance artificially.

But it's a fine line. What's the difference in taking a greenie or drinking a pot of coffee?

If greenies were kosher, then why couldn't steroids be kosher?

That's a totally different question. Without getting into a political/ethical discussion, why is any drug illegal?

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by Chip R

But it's a fine line. What's the difference in taking a greenie or drinking a pot of coffee?

A lot

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by jojo

How is cheating to effect the outcome of a game not cheating? You'll need to draw the line with greater detail to successfully argue that there are degrees of PED (esepcially given the classes that we've discussed in this thread) use concerning the sanctity of the game.



I would understand a graded scale based upon addictive properties but
I concede that it can be hypocrtical to act like everclear is benovelent but using pot requires ten years in jail when considering the effect alcoholism and drunkenness has on society. I don't think this is the best premise to base your argument upon.

The point was that there are problems with your statement that "cheating" is just a part of the game. While the search for that edge, within or outside of the rules, may have always been present, I don't think there is the historical evidence that it rose to the level of the steroid scandal. Historically, I think it stands alone as single handedly making a mockery of "the fabric of the game." That is my issue with your broadbrush statement.

The other part of your response, the point was nowhere made that I approved of alcohol's status as legal. There was no hint of minimizing of the effects of alcoholism in our society, which is not universal, just to be clear. However, as you stated, a starting point in the discussion is the addictive properties, and the financial impact and danger to society because of that addiction.

[M2]

Greenies help you play at your peak. Steroids help you raise your peak. Separately I suspect their effects might come out even in the wash. Together, allowing a player to play consistently at a higher peak, that's where you get something really potent.

One thing that keeps percolating up, and that drives me crazy, is the whole business of first ballot HOFers. Maybe it's because I find etiquette to be pointless and tiresome in most situations, but the writers are having a hard enough time electing worthy candidates as it is. When you have them passing over guys they know they're going to vote for in the future, like Biggio, based on some nonsensical social order, then you wind up with overstuffed ballots and a HOF that's failing to keep up with the history it's supposed to enshrine.

[M2]

Oh, and if they want a truly "clean" HOF, then I say they ought to administer polygraphs to every candidate and to every living player with a plaque in Cooperstown.

[Unassisted]

So how many other BBWAA members "abstained" like Fay did? Not many, it would appear.

There were 569 ballots counted in the 2013 tally.

I haven't been able to find how many ballots were sent out for 2013, so the next best thing is to compare with the total ballots in 2012: 573.

So, unless there was a major bump in membership during the year, it would appear that no more than a handful of members of the BBWAA chose not to vote like Fay.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Unassisted

So how many other BBWAA members "abstained" like Fay did? Not many, it would appear.

There were 569 ballots counted in the 2013 tally.

I haven't been able to find how many ballots were sent out for 2013, so the next best thing is to compare with the total ballots in 2012: 573.

So, unless there was a major bump in membership during the year, it would appear that no more than a handful of members of the BBWAA chose not to vote like Fay.

There are over 700 members in the association, but I don't know how many abstained and how many simply didn't cast a ballot.

[Plus Plus]

Originally Posted by Brutus

There are over 700 members in the association, but I don't know how many abstained and how many simply didn't cast a ballot.

I don't know if this was a mistake or not, but Mo Egger said on his show today that Fay told him that he turned in a blank ballot.

I think there is a definite chance that some people didn't realize that turning in no ballot and turning in a blank ballot were two very different things; this suspicion came more to light after hearing Nate Silver talk on ESPN's First Take this morning, and bring up the fact that a lot of the members of the BBWA don't even follow baseball closely or primarily write about baseball any longer (WOY, I'm sure you can discuss this further).

...and yet another reason to reevaluate the process.