More on HoF Voting
daltex
Posts: 3,486 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
The Committees need to go, or at least be seriously be revamped. One of these guys will be inducted this summer, and the other one will fall off the ballot because he couldn't convince 5% he was worthy.
0
Comments
The MLB HOF is watered down and has way too many borderline players in.
It’s too far broken to fix at this point, it’s just not as symbolic as a “HOF” should be
This link below is a breakdown of the recent vote. A simple search pertaining to HOF issues will provide a plethora of information on the HOF procedures, the BBWA and some glaring inequities of the system...and there are many. Yes, there are those in the HOF who shouldn't be there, and as you scroll down the voting list in the attachment, you'll wonder how did that player even get a consideration. Did you know that some players get 15 years of eligibility, when the majority only get 10? Don Mattingly is one of those players. Why and how did he become so unique?
I have been a staunch believer that Rose, Bonds, Clemens and ARod should not be in the HOF. However, now that I've read a few articles on what to me is GLARING favoritism, has had me change my mind. Curt Schilling is a case in point, he is not in the HOF because of his political viewpoints Punishing a man like this is obscene, and makes by view of the HOF almost a joke. I'm happy for Ortiz, but there remains a small shade of gray there with a PED incident...good for one, good for all.
https://www.mlb.com/news/baseball-hall-of-fame-2022-voting
''Curt Schilling is a case in point, he is not in the HOF because of his political viewpoints Punishing a man like this is obscene, and makes by view of the HOF almost a joke.''
That's the exact same reason why Ted Nugent wont make the RNR HOF.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
I find it unbelievably hypocritical that Bond and Clemens were not in bc of doping when you can be rest assured that if they were doing it, so was everyone else and probably b4 and after their times.
They let Gaylord Perry in who was a known cheater.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
The "steroid era" has changed many things. One is that "automatic" numbers are no longer considered automatic. I'm not sure if 3000 strikeouts was ever considered an automatic HoFer, but 300 wins, 500 home runs, and 3000 hits always were. Bonds and Rose far exceed the latter two, but the 300 wins was never going to hold up. I remember a lot of talk in the early 1990s about whether Don Sutton would be the first 300 game winner not to be elected. It is easy to make a case for Early Wynn or Gaylord Perry (see above), but I don't think anyone ever thought it would be Clemens,
He literally called for the murder of journalists and told people not to vote for him. It's not just politics.
Originally the HOF was a 15 year run on the writer's ballots, that was changed to 10 years. Some players like Mattingly likely were "fathered" into the 10 year rule.
Like it or not weather someone is liked does play a part in life. You might not be hired for a job or elected to office based on this. In sales that is the first thing u learn, "people buy from people they like." Basic human nature.
I think both Bonds and Clemens will pass via the eras committees. They will be more concerned about the stats vs how nice you were or PED (suspected) use.
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
for some people, certain kinds of cheating are permissible, while others are not.
crazy. considering steroids weren't even against MLB rules until the 2005 season.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
My favorite funny line was from a news report about the meeting of Gaylord Perry and Don Sutton: The old war horses once met in a 1979 game - Sutton was a Dodger, Perry a Padre. They shook hands and had a brief encounter. "He handed me a tube of Vaseline," Sutton said. "I thanked him and gave him a sheet of sandpaper."
In life, things like "jaywalking" are ignored while a serial killer gets the death penalty or life imprisonment. Seems to make complete sense to me.
>
>
You keep saying this, but it is incorrect. It WAS against the rules, it just wasn't in the collective bargaining agreement. Really silly to say that ANY rules change has to be approved by the contract. Steroids were an illegal substance, just because the MLB didn't renegotiate their contract doesn't mean they weren't illegal.
1991
Steroids finally made it to baseball's banned substance list in 1991, however testing for major league players did not begin until the 2003 season.
Not testing until 2003 means that MLB promoted steroids. And then Mcguire and Sosa saved the sport.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
we went round and round on this a few months ago. first, MLB rules and civil/criminal law are two different things. and, as was said before, in a business that is protected by antitrust laws, you better believe something like drug testing and banned substance lists HAVE to be collectively bargained before they make the rule book.
until something is in the rule book, there is no rule against it. with no rule, there is no cheating. it is really super simple.
if you have a personal feeling that doesn't accept the use of drugs/supplements, that is a personal opinion. just like the size of the strike zone and whether or not to call a batter out who strikes a ball while their back foot is out of the batters box.
your personal morality or feelings on a subject have nothing to do with the MLB rulebook.
remember the Mike Piazza question you had such a hard time answering last time? there will always be new and better drugs/suppliments. it is up to the sports/unions/governing committies to stay current as to what is acceptable and what is not to be playing within the rules. as for steroids, it was decided they were against the rules before the 2005 season.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
You sound like a lawyer who has the losing case trying to find a loophole that isn't really there. I understand where you are coming from, I just don't think a reasonable person would agree.
Taken from the article "When did Steroids become illegal in the United States?"
by Conor Heffernan
"After two years of deliberations Congress passed the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990, thereby criminalising possession of anabolic steroids without a valid prescription. Anabolic steroids were listed in the same legal class as barbiturates, ketamine, LSD precursors, and narcotic painkillers such as Vicodin. Once the law became effective in 1991, unlawful possession of any amount of anabolic steroids, even without the intent to sell or distribute, became a federal crime. This applied to athletes and non- athletes alike with the potential of imprisonment of up to one year and/or a minimum fine of $1,000 seen as an effective deterrent."
FEDERAL CRIME.
If you need to get all lawyery on the subject, I can do that. Baseball has had morals clauses in players contracts since 1922 (during prohibition) with the Yankees and Babe Ruth over the consumption of alcohol.
Obviously, even if steroids were not specifically mentioned in the collective bargaining contract at the time, obtaining them would be a violation of the morals clause in the players individual contracts with the ballclubs.
Furthermore, since 1972 with the Supreme Court ruling on the Curt Flood case, we were shown that the Federal Courts and laws superseded any MLB contract.
Any CBA that would allow the players to commit Federal crimes is illegal. In fact the CBA doesn't allow the use of steroids, it just doesn't mention them, that's not the same as permission. Any use of federally banned substances would be a violation. It is ridiculous to say the CBA needed to be renegotiated and steroids specifically included.
Any reasonable person would then assume that if any illegal drugs were banned by the existing CBA, when a "new drug" was declared a federal crime to obtain without a doctors prescription, it would be illegal for the players to use.
The commissioner issued a memo to inform the players at the time that does clarify the issue. No matter what he said to follow, the MLB informed the players these drugs were banned and anyone even having them in their possession was "cheating" and subject to disciplinary action.
Lastly, if any of the steroid users were prosecuted for the crime of possessing the substance in federal court, do you think they would have been declared "not guilty" because Baseball's CBA didn't mention them? No sir.
>
>
"if you have a personal feeling that doesn't accept the use of drugs/supplements, that is a personal opinion. just like the size of the strike zone and whether or not to call a batter out who strikes a ball while their back foot is out of the batters box."
>
>
It's illegal to use any prescription drug without a doctors approval. Anyone doing so, in any job, is at risk of discipline. The employer could simply turn the offender over to the authorities if the employee didn't like the discipline.
I doubt if the size of the strike zone or batters box issues are federal crimes.
>
>
"your personal morality or feelings on a subject have nothing to do with the MLB rulebook."
>
>
I don't have personal feelings here, not sure why you mention it. Does the MLB rulebook specifically ban every single crime? If not, any not mentioned should be OK too?
>
>
"remember the Mike Piazza question you had such a hard time answering last time? there will always be new and better drugs/suppliments. it is up to the sports/unions/governing committies to stay current as to what is acceptable and what is not to be playing within the rules. as for steroids, it was decided they were against the rules before the 2005 season."
>
>
I have never had a hard time answering any of your deflective questions, so no, I don't remember that. It's not pertinent to the point. Piazza didn't test positive, did he? Nope.
You made a specific comment that Steroids were not "cheating" until 2005.
I disagree, and feel it was clearly wrong after the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990. The law went into effect in 1991.
>
>
Certainly possible.
Ted Williams tried to bring up the case for Joe Jackson and was loudly denied.
Who knows what will be done in the future? Personally, I would be OK with Clemens, but not Bonds/Sosa/McGwire.
@JoeBanzai said:
So you are saying some can be forgiven for suspected steroid/PED use and others can't? Hmmm.....
oh Joe. we do agree on a lot of topics, but you are just off the mark here.
the MLB rule book deals with procedural and competitive issues. it does not deal with crimes or federal laws. part of the rule book, at least since the 1970s is a list of banned substances. that list is agreed upon by the union and the PA. no matter how hard you want to not believe, steroids were not on that list until the 2005 season.
the 1991 memo you mentioned is just that, a memo. fay vincent himself said it was in no way a steroid policy and held no standing in regards to the rules. I am not sure why you don't believe Fay Vincent?
the banned substance list changes from negotiation to negotiation. so some substances that are within the rules now, may be negotiated off the list in 5 or 10 or 25 years. this is where the piazza question comes into play.
Mike Piazza admitted to using Andro during the 90s when it was perfectly within MLB rules to do so. much later, it was negotiated onto the banned substance list after it was found to be a steroid. that is science and not debatable.
the question is, did Piazza "cheat" as you would put it? the substance was not on the banned substance list when he used it. later it was. the exact same as all other PED currently on the list since 2005.
so, was Piazza a cheater?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
As my son used to say "No, you are!" LOL
>
Then why was there testing in 2003? No reason to test if they weren't against the rules.
>
His original memo informed the players and union steroids were banned.
>
Not part of this discussion. Andro was not on the 1990 list of substances illegal to get without a prescription. It was a legal supplement and not an Anabolic Steroid.
>
>
How many times do I have to say it?
He was not a cheater by taking Andro. I am referring to the drugs mentioned in the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990.
Andro was/is a joke, He had it in his locker to fool the press. He was getting his insane results from the likes of The Clear, The Cream, Deca-Durabolin, Winstrol, and Stanozolol.
Bonds used, it was PROVEN, Clemens might have used, it was never proven.
Please don't bother responding to my posts.
Hey, the horse is far, far out of the barn on that one.
I will point out, in passing, that Tim Raines' cocaine use, more thoroughly documented than any of the above for PEDs, didn't keep him out. It also hasn't been mentioned as a significant factor for Parker, Hernandez, or Baker when their candidacies are mentioned.
the 2003 anonymous testing was only a survey.
the 1991 memo from Fay Vincent literally means nothing. it was not a rule or a decree or anything of the sort. Fay Vincent himself said so.
Andro is absolutely a steroid. that is fact.
Q: In your expert opinion, should Androstenedione be known as a supplement or a drug, a steroid?
Wadler: Androstenedione is a steroid, always was a steroid, always will be a steroid and should be treated with utmost respect and as a drug and not as a dietary supplement.
do you not think that new and better steroids/PED are developed every year? should we stay only with the banned list from 1985? 2005? 2011? chemists are constantly trying to stay ahead of the testers. look at cycling and swimming. Of course the lists need to be updated every so often.
the question is, should players be punished in arrears for items they ingested when they were not included on the banned list? If so, how is that fair? If not, then using steroids/amphetamines/andro pre 2005 cannot be against the rules.
If you think Piazza was not "cheating" when he admittedly took Andro, which is currently on the banned list but not when he took it, how can it be intellectually honest of you to give other players a stricter level of scrutiny for doing the EXACT same thing?
I would say you are not being intellectually honest at all.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Kind of humorous looking back. Massive home runs both in distance and numbers. Many folks wanted investigations to determine if the BASEBALLS were juiced.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
To be fair, it's pretty much proven that the baseballs were juiced.
>
Yes, a survey to see how many players were breaking the rules. Absolutely no reason to take a survey to see who is not breaking the rules, is there?
>
>
It means everything, now no one can say "nobody ever told me". It clarifies the entire situation, once issued it cannot be undone, and shouldn't be.
>
So is cortisone, big deal. Andro does next to nothing. A firecracker is an explosive, so's an atomic bomb.
>
I am not an expert. It wasn't on the 1990 law and it was later included in the banned list. Do yourself a favor and read Canseco's book, he knew more about steroids than most doctors and I'm sure he didn't bother with Andro. The results were nowhere near what he got from the injectable steroids I mentioned earlier.
>
Ok, it's a drug, so is aspirin.
>
More deflection, don't you ever get tired of it? I am commenting on the 1990 federal mandate that went into effect in 1991. If the owners and players had any sense at all, there would be a provision in the CBA (maybe there is?) that new drugs could be added to the list without signing a whole new agreement.
>
Just who's being punished? A bunch of multi millionaires who now dominate the record books with numbers they couldn't have dreamed of without Anabolic Steroids?
How about all the players who lost out on money and records because they didn't cheat? HOW ABOUT ANSWERING THAT QUESTION?
>
Not even remotely the same thing.Andro wasn't on the 1990 law.
>
>
I offer my opinion honestly. Anabolic Steroids were declared an illegal drug in 1990 and the law went into effect in 1991.
There's really no need to go any farther.
The players knew it and the ones who continued to use were knowingly breaking federal law. That's good enough for me.
Andro wasn't included on the list at that time, so it's use wasn't a violation. At the time Piazza used them, they were an over the counter supplement, not a federally illegal drug.
Really simple.
Apparently, in your world, a guy who forgets he has company purchased pencil in his pocket when he leaves work is as much a thief as the guy who embezzles millions from the company. I don't see it that way.