Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
The same great Twins Daily coverage, now for the Vikings.

The Store

Recent Blogs


Photo

Article: Hall of Fame Flap Brewing?

  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#1 Jim Crikket

Jim Crikket

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,134 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 05:19 PM

You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.co...me-Flap-Brewing
[COLOR=#0000cd]I opine about the Twins and Kernels regularly at[/COLOR][COLOR=#800000] Knuckleballsblog.com[/COLOR][COLOR=#0000cd] while my alter ego, SD Buhr covers the Kernels for [/COLOR][COLOR=#0000cd][COLOR=#800000]MetroSportsReport.com[/COLOR][/COLOR][COLOR=#0000cd].[/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000cd]
[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#b22222]~You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant~[/COLOR]

#2 OldManWinter

OldManWinter

    Member

  • Members
  • 80 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 12:00 AM

How can anyone vote for dishonest numbers? How can anyone determine what the honest numbers really are? It is not likely that guys between 35 and 39 can hit with so much more power than between 25 and 29? The score is 175 HRs in his late 20's and 258 HR's in his late 30's for anyone interested.

#3 biggentleben

biggentleben

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,050 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 02:14 AM

How can anyone vote for dishonest numbers? How can anyone determine what the honest numbers really are? It is not likely that guys between 35 and 39 can hit with so much more power than between 25 and 29? The score is 175 HRs in his late 20's and 258 HR's in his late 30's for anyone interested.


You vote the era. Drug use was rampant from the 40s through the 80s. The best players weren't even allowed to play until the 1940s, so any numbers weren't truly put up against the best the game had to offer. The 90s and 2000s saw the steroid era. The 1960s are considered a major pitcher's era because of the mound height change that was later changed back. Jack Morris pitching in the 1960s doesn't even make a second ballot. You have to go by the era the player played in. If he was, in fact, one of the absolute elite in his era, he's in. If you start to police the game, you need to remove everyone from the Hall because there are no clean players in the Hall. Not one.
Staff Writer for Tomahawktake.com, come check it out!

#4 grubah

grubah

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 06:47 AM

I don't think expanding it to 15 would have any effect at all. How many ballots currently have 10 voted for? My guess is very few.

#5 Ctwink

Ctwink

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 07:09 AM

There will most certainly be more years in the future where no one is elected. You have this huge backlog of "cheaters", 95% of whom are only guilty by association, who will never be voted in (because all the sanctimonious voters have decided that they should be made an example), but who remain on the ballot because enough other people vote for them. When you continually add in more retirees, you only add to this list. Whether voters can put 10 people on the ballot or 15, even slamdunk candidates won't be elected in their first couple ballots. It's the 40's and 50's all over again (although for obviously different reasons) where guys like Hank Greenberg took 9 yrs to be elected and Joe Cronin 10.

The only ways that this is going to solved is for A) MLB or the HOF to come out and officially say that unless someone is a convicted/admitted steroid users, steroids were not tested for or considered against the rules at the time they were playing so they should be considered innocent, B) just the opposite - everyone who played from 1995 to 2005 is considered dirty and we shouldn't elect anyone (even the people we have annoited as "the nice people" like Bags, Biggio and Maddux - everyone). Since you can't tell who did it and who didn't, everyone is assumed guilty and you can't vote for any of them (even if the guy, or C) all the "assumed dirty" guys fall off the ballot on their own.

Bottomline is its a mess and it isn't improving.

#6 OldManWinter

OldManWinter

    Member

  • Members
  • 80 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 08:13 AM

Biggentleben, Jack Morris did not pitch MLB in the 60's. A 17 year career started in 1977.

No one ever accused me of being an honor student, but if it turned out a class valedictorian cheated for his/her grades would you still honor the achievement?

Of course not.

If you discovered a quarter of that class was also cheating you may not know every single cheater. But you would certainly know when career "C" students suddenly vaulted to the top of their class that there was funny business going on.

So how do you honor them? Create a special award for the best cheaters?

Honoring cheating dishonors the Killebrews who did not cheat. It also dishonors the Jack Morris' because if he was competing against his numbers are unfairly reduced.

#7 twinsnorth49

twinsnorth49

    Moderately Moderate

  • Twins Mods
  • 3,765 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 08:33 AM

If you start to police the game, you need to remove everyone from the Hall because there are no clean players in the Hall. Not one.


How on earth can you make that claim?

#8 Jim Crikket

Jim Crikket

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,134 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 09:40 AM

Thanks for all the comments.

I guess I just think it's best to give the process time to work the way it's supposed to. The 'roids issue, to me, is just one more factor that the voters have to weigh and decide for themselves what it means to them. It will mean a lot of the PED users never get in, that would have otherwise. It may mean some of the very best PED users do get in... but much later than they would have otherwise. Maybe that's the way it should be, too.

Obviously, Ctwink and I disagree totally on the chances we'll see a lot of years with nobody elected. We won't find out who's right for a while, but I think you'll be surprised by how many really great players start hitting the ballot that have no character issues at all attached to them.

Will this make the BBWAA voters' jobs more difficult and uncomfortable every year? Yes. But they want the honor of being the gatekeeper, so I really don't want to hear them whine this much about how difficult it is and how somebody else needs to do something to make it easier for them to make their decisions.

#9 Rosterman

Rosterman

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,000 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 09:48 AM

The baseball writers change (some die, some come on board) over the 15-20 years a player is out of baseball. The arguments are always made that if I guy is elected right away, what makes him more electable and appealing 10 years or 15 years down the line. Also, make the argument that if a guy is Hall of Fame bound, it should -- happen. Today, not tomorrow. Okay, he's a first ballot Hall of Famer. Does that make him better than everyone else in the Hall (let's start making walls configured with who got in on what ballot). I'm glad there is the second chance where Hall of Famers actually vote. But I would almost like to see the positions reversed where Hall of Famers vote for the Hall of Famers, and BBWAA vote for those that should've could've.
Joel Thingvall
www.thingvall.com
rosterman at www.twinscards.com

#10 jm3319

jm3319

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 140 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 09:59 AM

News Flash: People have been cheating since the game began. The only thing has changed is how they cheat. Who is to say that amphetamines are perfectly okay, but steroid use leads to being not voted into the hall of fame? Hank Aaron admitted to using amphetamines. Bonds used steroids. The homerun total is 755-762, steroids win by a hair. Both used PED's of some nature. Both deserve to be in the Hall. Yes it's unfair to anyone who was 100% clean during their career, but we have zero way of determining who was 100% clean.

#11 YLT

YLT

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 24 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 10:26 AM

Like it or not, baseball's history is nuanced and complex - just like the rest of human history. The fact that it does have such a rich history (for better or worse) is part of what makes baseball such a fantastic game. That begs the question asked recently by ESPN's Jayson Stark: Is the HoF a shrine or a museum or both? If it's a shrine, then a group of people who are already in better get kicked out. Maybe Ty Cobb shouldn't be in the HoF because he was a raging racist. Gaylord Perry and Whitey Ford certainly shouldn't if you consider doctoring baseballs a sin unworthy of the shrine. If it's a museum then that bad part of the history (cheating, drugs, racism, exploitation, etc) can be explained along with the greatness of the player elected. I'm a big fan of the HoF being a museum because historical context is a must. A baseball shrine is sterile, uninteresting and does not tell the story of baseball.

#12 YLT

YLT

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 24 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 10:36 AM

I'd also like to point out that while McGwire, Bonds and Sosa were ripping jack-jobs off of every thing thrown their way, no one was saying boo about it. The fans loved it, the media loved it and the owners and Bud Selig knowingly turned a blind eye. The one reporter who wrote an article about McGwire's use of over-the-counter steroids was ostracized for bringing it up during the homerun chase. What McGwire was taking at the time wasn't even a banned substance according to MLB. Certainly he knew that roids = bombs, but there really wasn't much stopping him.

#13 Ctwink

Ctwink

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 10:44 AM

I think we'll have to agree to disagree Jim. It seems obvious that the problem is only going to get worse because of the upcoming classes: Glavine, Maddux and Jeff Kent next year; Randy, Pedro and Smoltz for 2015, Griffey & Billy Wagner in 2016, Vlad, Posada, Manny, Varitek, and Ivan Rodriguez in 2017, and Chipper and Omar Vizquel in 2018. All could eventually get elected which will further spread the votes around to a continually growing pool of players as all the holdover players continue to get enough votes to stay on the ballot. Factor in writers who throw out stray votes for "their" guys (like a Twins writer putting in a vote for Jacque Jones) or players like Mike Mussina or Luis Gonzalez garnering vote percentages in the teens and 20's, but who will fall short of being elected to one degree or another, and you have a growing problem where you don't have enough slots on the ballot to vote for everyone who is a legitimate HOF candidate. In addition, you have a slam-dunk guy like Maddux or Randy Johnson who is voted in on the 1st ballot and consequently, everyone else's vote totals will drop. And you have guys like that almost every year. It isn't getting better any time soon.

#14 Riverbrian

Riverbrian

    Goofy Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 9,580 posts
  • LocationGrand Forks

Posted 10 January 2013 - 10:56 AM

Personally... I have a hard time being concerned about it... I look at Pete Rose... If he's not in... Obviously precedent has been set for inclusion.

Like a diver in the Olympics. The Russian Judge has a different score than what the Swiss Judge has.

To me... Fame means Fame... Good or Bad... but since a precedent has been set... Here's a solution that isn't serious at all.

Create a basement section of the hall in Cooperstown. Call it Hall of Fame "Hell" or "Damnation" or something of the like... Decend the stairs or take the elevator into the bowels of Cooperstown... Be greeted by flames on the basement walls. Thermostat turned up to 100 plus degrees... Blood curdling sound effects piped in.

In that environment... You can put Shoeless Joe... Pete Rose... Barry Bonds... Roger Clemens... Mark McGwire and (pause) Calvin Griffith.

#15 LaBombo

LaBombo

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,040 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 11:23 AM

News Flash: People have been cheating since the game began. The only thing has changed is how they cheat. Who is to say that amphetamines are perfectly okay, but steroid use leads to being not voted into the hall of fame? Hank Aaron admitted to using amphetamines. Bonds used steroids. The homerun total is 755-762, steroids win by a hair. Both used PED's of some nature. Both deserve to be in the Hall. Yes it's unfair to anyone who was 100% clean during their career, but we have zero way of determining who was 100% clean.


Ugh. Where to begin.

First, amphetamines weren't "cheating" when Aaron used them, because they weren't banned by MLB until 2006, 15 years AFTER steroids.

Second, amphetamines aren't performance enhancers. They don't make you stronger or faster, they just make you less tired.

Third, the "Guilty until proven innocent" rationalization is beyond silly. If you cheat, you shouldn't get in. If Bonds cared about the Hall of Fame, he shouldn't have cheated, and he'd be in today. Now he can buy a ticket like everyone else if he wants to get in. Same for the rest of the 'roid morons.

Rewarding dishonesty is always a bad idea. So is patting someone on the back for injecting themselves with dangerous chemicals. Nice messages for America's youth: 'Cheat and abuse your body! See you when you and your shriveled grapes get voted in!'.

Edited by LaBombo, 10 January 2013 - 11:30 AM.


#16 LaBombo

LaBombo

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,040 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 11:29 AM

. If it's a museum then that bad part of the history (cheating, drugs, racism, exploitation, etc) can be explained along with the greatness of the player elected. I'm a big fan of the HoF being a museum because historical context is a must. A baseball shrine is sterile, uninteresting and does not tell the story of baseball.


The worst kind of defense of the roid clowns. Being a bad guy isn't cheating. Don't lump the character defect guys in with the nitwits shooting up so they could put on extra muscle.

#17 YLT

YLT

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 24 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 12:02 PM

The worst kind of defense of the roid clowns. Being a bad guy isn't cheating. Don't lump the character defect guys in with the nitwits shooting up so they could put on extra muscle.


What's the argument for Perry or Ford being in the HoF then? Is cutting or greasing baseballs not cheating? Or is that just a clever or funny way to cheat so it's ok? How is that advantage any different than steroids? Both of those guys knowingly took illegal measures to enhance their chance of getting an out. Corked bat guys? In or out? How about sign stealers? It's complex and becomes a slippery slope - hence context of the era is needed.

#18 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 12:16 PM

'First, amphetamines weren't "cheating" when Aaron used them, because they weren't banned by MLB until 2006, 15 years AFTER steroids.'

How long have Amphetamines been illegal in the US?

In 1991, Vincent sent a groundbreaking memorandum to all MLB clubs regarding the use of steroids, although he really did not consider steroids to be a major problem at the time. Vincent merely wanted to lay the groundwork for an attempt to control the entire drug and potential steroid problem, i.e., he was being proactive with regard to steroids. In his memorandum, Vincent emphasized, "There is no place for illegal drugs in baseball. Their use by players and others in baseball can neither be condoned nor tolerated. Baseball players and personnel cannot be permitted to give even the slightest suggestion that illegal drug use is either acceptable or safe. It is the responsibility of all baseball players and personnel to see to it that the use of illegal drugs does not occur, and if it does, to put a stop to it."

Commissioner Vincent's memorandum contained the following provisions:
• The possession, sale, or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by major league players and personnel is strictly prohibited. Those involved in the possession, sale, or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game.
• In addition to any discipline this office may impose, a club may also take action under applicable provisions of and special covenants to the uniform player's contract. This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription.
• MLB recognizes that illegal drug use has become a national problem, and that some players and baseball personnel may fall victim to drugs. Baseball will not hesitate to permanently remove from the game those players and personnel who, despite our efforts to treat and rehabilitate, refuse to accept responsibility for the problem and continue to use illegal drugs. If any club covers up or otherwise fails to disclose to this office any information concerning drug use by a player, that club will be fined $250,000, the highest allowable amount under the Major League Agreement.
• MLB believes that its testing program is the most effective means available to deter and detect drug use. For admitted or detected drug users, testing will be a component of that individual's after-care program for the balance of his or her professional baseball career.
• This office will continue to search for positive and constructive methods of dealing with drug use. While baseball will attempt to treat and rehabilitate any player or personnel who falls victim to a drug problem, we will not hesitate to impose discipline, especially in those cases involving repeated offenses or refusals to participate in a recommended and appropriate course of treatment.
• If any club has a question about any aspect of the drug use program, please contact Louis Melendez, Associate Counsel, Major League Baseball Player Relations Committee.


Sincerely,
Francis T. Vincent Jr.

It does seem Aaron was fine, seeing as how he last played in '76, but we'd have to see if there was any other rules regarding illegal substances during that time. And, of course, Amphetamines were illegal, period.

'After decades of reported abuse, the FDA banned Benzedrine inhalers, and limited amphetamine to prescription use in 1965, but non-medical use remained common. Amphetamine became a schedule II drug in the USA under the Controlled Substances Act in 1971.'

Edited by ThePuck, 10 January 2013 - 12:38 PM.


#19 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,714 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 12:24 PM

What's the argument for Perry or Ford being in the HoF then? Is cutting or greasing baseballs not cheating? Or is that just a clever or funny way to cheat so it's ok? How is that advantage any different than steroids? Both of those guys knowingly took illegal measures to enhance their chance of getting an out. Corked bat guys? In or out? How about sign stealers? It's complex and becomes a slippery slope - hence context of the era is needed.


So because a cheater has already been admitted, we should open the door to all of them? That's a pretty thin arguement. I could care less if Perry got kicked out of the Hall, but his spitball rates at about a 1 on baseballs scandal meter. The steriod cheats made the embarasment of the 1994 strike look like a funny little sidenote in the games history. These guys did significant damage to the game. They knew there would be consequeces if they got caught.

#20 YLT

YLT

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 24 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 12:43 PM

On a similar note: are we of the delusion that players aren't still doping right now? Certainly these guys know about EPO and how well that works and how quickly you can taper off of it before a season starts. How often are major leaguers being tested? Is it ok to dope in the offseason to increase your workload without getting injured and then taper it off before the season begins? Or do they have to be caught in the act? Again, more complex interpretations of "cheating."

Cycling and track and field are eons ahead of baseball in this area and I'd say they're still a few steps behind the best dopers. As one track and field commentator put it last summer, "you'd have to be completely stupid to actually get caught at the Olympics using a banned substance." It's all about the timing. So what is it: doping in the offseason is ok and during the season it's not? One time caught and you never go to the HoF? Lifetime ban from baseball on a three strikes you're out rule? What if MLB decides something that's legal today ("natural supplements", suspect use of thyroid medication (steroids), caffeine, etc.) becomes illegal in the next generation? What do you do with the HoF then? Look, I'm not saying we just let everybody dope and be done with it - exactly the opposite. If MLB is serious about this they better up their ante in terms of testing and biological passports, which I am in full support of, otherwise it'll just turn into the NFL. We're simply turning another blind eye if we think doping is over.

#21 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Twins Daily Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,916 posts
  • LocationLake Tahoe, Nevada

Posted 10 January 2013 - 01:05 PM

So because a cheater has already been admitted, we should open the door to all of them? That's a pretty thin arguement. I could care less if Perry got kicked out of the Hall, but his spitball rates at about a 1 on baseballs scandal meter. The steriod cheats made the embarasment of the 1994 strike look like a funny little sidenote in the games history. These guys did significant damage to the game. They knew there would be consequeces if they got caught.


To me, an important distinction is whether mechanisms exist for the officials on the field to do something about it or not. Umpires are hardly unaware of spitballs and corked bats and the like, and when they choose not to enforce those rules it is questionable for others to go about trying to correct this choice after the fact. On the other hand, umpires should not be tasked with trying to determine whether a player has an illegal substance in his body or not. I don't think it's fair to suggest someone of hypocrisy if they choose to view these differently. "Between the white lines" versus not, matters to me.

#22 biggentleben

biggentleben

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,050 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 01:39 PM

Biggentleben, Jack Morris did not pitch MLB in the 60's. A 17 year career started in 1977.


Never said he did. I'm saying if he pitched in the 1960s, no one would EVER consider him a HOF pitcher.
Staff Writer for Tomahawktake.com, come check it out!

#23 biggentleben

biggentleben

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,050 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 01:45 PM

Ugh. Where to begin.

First, amphetamines weren't "cheating" when Aaron used them, because they weren't banned by MLB until 2006, 15 years AFTER steroids.

Second, amphetamines aren't performance enhancers. They don't make you stronger or faster, they just make you less tired.

Third, the "Guilty until proven innocent" rationalization is beyond silly. If you cheat, you shouldn't get in. If Bonds cared about the Hall of Fame, he shouldn't have cheated, and he'd be in today. Now he can buy a ticket like everyone else if he wants to get in. Same for the rest of the 'roid morons.

Rewarding dishonesty is always a bad idea. So is patting someone on the back for injecting themselves with dangerous chemicals. Nice messages for America's youth: 'Cheat and abuse your body! See you when you and your shriveled grapes get voted in!'.


Except that every sport has them considered performance enhancers, and they've always been illegal without a prescription in the form that was utilized in baseball. Greenies aren't your old Excedrin. They're concentrated amphetamine, and ABSOLUTELY a performance enhancer. You do realize that there are more evidenced research studies done that find steroids do NOT enhance quick twitch performance (basically hitting or throwing a baseball). There are plenty of other studies that state that steroids actually slow down quick-twitch reactions, so they make a baseball player worse, not better. Not every person responds the same to every drug, but to claim amphetamines are not enhancing and steroids are as a blanket statement is simply incorrect.
Staff Writer for Tomahawktake.com, come check it out!

#24 biggentleben

biggentleben

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,050 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 01:47 PM

How on earth can you make that claim?


As easily as someone can claim anyone currently in the Hall is clean...
Staff Writer for Tomahawktake.com, come check it out!

#25 LaBombo

LaBombo

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,040 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 01:54 PM

Except that every sport has them considered performance enhancers, and they've always been illegal without a prescription in the form that was utilized in baseball. Greenies aren't your old Excedrin. They're concentrated amphetamine, and ABSOLUTELY a performance enhancer. You do realize that there are more evidenced research studies done that find steroids do NOT enhance quick twitch performance (basically hitting or throwing a baseball). There are plenty of other studies that state that steroids actually slow down quick-twitch reactions, so they make a baseball player worse, not better. Not every person responds the same to every drug, but to claim amphetamines are not enhancing and steroids are as a blanket statement is simply incorrect.


Yup, Bonds, MM, and SS all fought through the disadvantage of steroids to get their tree trunk arms around on those fastballs at a suddenly record-setting pace. Way to triumph over adversity!

Unbelievable. If you want to think there's moral equivalency between Mays/Aaron and the roid freaks, have at it. You're making the argument that using a publicly illegal drug (a character issue) is the same as using a league-banned substance (a rules violation). It's the same mistake that most of the Pete Rose defenders make at some point.

And the semantics of performance-enhancing vs. -altering aside, there are medical journal studies showing that amphetamines have either minimal or even no detectable effect on most kinds of athletic performance.

On the other hand, steroids had an incredibly easy-to-detect effect on the roid users. They became ridiculously muscular and began hitting more homers at a phase in their careers where most players begin to hit fewer, or retire.

Bonds, for the record, tested positive for amphets too, about 10 minutes after they started testing.

Edited by LaBombo, 10 January 2013 - 02:34 PM.


#26 biggentleben

biggentleben

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,050 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 01:57 PM

Yup, Bonds, MM, and SS all fought through the disadvantage of steroids to get their tree trunk arms around on those fastballs at a suddenly record-setting pace.

Unbelievable.


And Ken Caminiti lost his life due to steroid use. Many players went downhill after reported steroid use, just like many improved. You want to see only those who gained from the drugs, just like only seeing those who are mentally ill and attack someone will confirm a bias someone has against the mentally ill. Neither is correct.
Staff Writer for Tomahawktake.com, come check it out!

#27 snepp

snepp

    Curve Hanger

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,263 posts
  • LocationSioux Falls

Posted 10 January 2013 - 02:14 PM

I'm sure Caminiti's problems with cocaine abuse had nothing to do with it, it was the steroids.

#28 jacku641

jacku641

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 9 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 02:59 PM

Here's my take on the players that used or are suspected of using PEDs. The voters for the HOF will make sure they stay on the ballot until at least one "clean" player is elected. For pitchers that happens next year when Maddox and possibly Glavine get in. For hitters, it will happen after Ken Griffey Jr. is elected. (And possibly Jim Thome if he decides 2012 was his last year.) I think this is how the BBWAA makes its stand.

#29 LaBombo

LaBombo

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,040 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 04:41 PM

And Ken Caminiti lost his life due to steroid use. Many players went downhill after reported steroid use, just like many improved. You want to see only those who gained from the drugs, just like only seeing those who are mentally ill and attack someone will confirm a bias someone has against the mentally ill. Neither is correct.


Caminiti experienced a huge power spike in the same years (including his MVP year) the other roid users did, so swing and a miss there. His death, if anything, is an indirect argument against your apparent desire to ignore the cheating (a distinction you have ignored in every post) of the roid candidates.

Why endorse a deadly drug by rubber-stamping the HOF bids of some of the most notorious steroid abusers in sports? The mental illness analogy is an incredibly sad effort to create the illusion of victimhood in a discussion where none exists.

#30 one_eyed_jack

one_eyed_jack

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 590 posts

Posted 10 January 2013 - 06:11 PM

I don't have a problem with the result of yesterday's vote as much as I do the reasoning (or lack thereof) behind it. When you read some of the published explanations for ballots, it's hard not to come away feeling like the process is completely broken.

For example, you've got Wallace Matthews saying things like "You can argue that I should have voted for Jack Morris (I have in the past but wasn't feeling it this year)....

Really? He wasn't "feeling it"? Last I checked it was the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Wallace Matthews' Feelings.

I read another guy who said that he "needed more time" to decide on Biggio. More time? Don't they get these ballots months before they're due? If you can't do the job in the time alloted, step aside and give it to someone who can.