155 replies to this topic

[mweb08]

I think you may not be aware of how the election process works. The HOF and MLB are separate entities. MLB has no input in the voting process. The extent of their weight seems to be limited to strongly suggesting what hat should be on a player's plaque. But that has now evolved into the players' choice (note that word, evolve). So how MLB governed itself or its players, what PED rules they enforced or didn't has no bearing on who get's elected to the HOF.
Furthermore, left to their own devices, MLB would have never addressed the issue of steroids. The sport was never more popular than the juiced era. So they turned a blind eye. It was one of those petty writers (Tom Verducci) that had enough of watching the game he loved, turn into a circus freak show. Without him and other writers who felt the game, and its history, were being violated, it's quite possible we'd be watching Shrek sized humans hitting 800' HRs and throwing 200 mph fastballs. So when someone submits their ballot, they aren't bound by whatever rules MLB decided to enforce during any given span of time.

I am very aware of all that. Don't know why you are sharing it with me either.

[weird-O]

I am very aware of all that. Don't know why you are sharing it with me either.

I suppose I'm sharing it, because it's part of the conversation we're all having. 

[makoman]

I think it's reasonable for a voter to ignore the character clause for things like being a bad person off the field, since it's been ignored ever since the Hall opened, but to apply it for cheating at the game. Even if it wasn't explicitly against the rules at a particular time one can make a fair case that using something illegal that is performance enhancing is cheating via being illegal. 

 

Like Mackus says I would not approve of holding it against anyone where there is no evidence whatsoever of use.

 

If a voter held this view I would hope they would also have applied it to Gaylord Perry too. And such a voter would also have to address the widespread amphetamines use of the old days. If steroids is cheating that stuff is cheating. I recognize that opens up a whole can of worms.

 

Is one time enough? Routine use? I don't know, I'm not such a voter. Personally I would let them all in.

[weird-O]

And I strongly disapprove of any writers who withhold votes just because the guy wasn't nice to them or didn't give them good answers during interviews.  Those people should lose their right to vote.

Do you think any voters are actually acting in this manner? 

 

I'm responsible for bringing that notion into the conversation. But I'd be surprised if Gammons, or anyone else, was holding out, because a player treated him poorly. 

[mweb08]

I don't see the hypocrisy that it seems that you're cautioning against. What cases outside of steroids in the steroid era are you referring to? And do those cases influence a player's performance so much that it could reasonably alter how their overall greatness is received?

I doubt any baseball HOF voters are also football HOF votes. It's a little bit of a double standard to judge steroid and PED use in one sport more harshly than the other, but I don't think it's so much so that it invalidates both or either opinion. Shawne Merriman wasn't a HOF level player, but if he was, I don't think I'd criticize a double-sport voter who voted for him for the football HOF despite his positive tests and against Manny Ramirez for the baseball HOF because of his positive tests.

A big part of that is because of how important and beautiful I think the numbers are in baseball and how unimportant and irrelevant the numbers are records are in football. baseball across many eras was still pretty consistent in terms of overall statistics. So the records of old have a lot of meaning even to the game of today (with some exceptions like win totals being hard to keep up with now). Football changes so much, maybe just me but I don't care about the records from the 60s being tainted by the game of today (whether drug-fueled or just rule and strategy altered).

I'd vote for everyone regardless of steroid use, but I understand the rationale to not vote for someone we know used and I don't disapprove of that mindset. I do disapprove of not voting for someone who the writer merely suspects was a user, like say Bagwell of Piazza. And I strongly disapprove of any writers who withhold votes just because the guy wasn't nice to them or didn't give them good answers during interviews. Those people should lose their right to vote.

I am not referring so much to cases within the steroid era beyond steroid usage (although greenies, altering baseballs, and Astros would all be relevant), but cases of admitted or proven cheating that occurred outside of the era.

Yes, baseball and football writers probably don't overlap much, if at all. However, their and our logic here should be consistent when offering up opinions, even if they don't come with votes.

Yes, you're correct in one main reason why people care more about steroids in baseball than in football, which is the records. Just because one cares more about baseball records doesn't mean this is without hypocrisy, it just explains why that person is being hypocritical.

It's not just drugs though in football. What do you do with Bill Belichick and Tom Brady for instance? I admit the latter is more complicated, but if the standard is being suspended by the league for cheating, well that did happen. I'll accept more of a defense for him on the grounds that the suspension was unwarranted though than I would for Belichick. I would of course include both of them plus the worthy drug users in my version of the football HOF, which is consistent with my baseball stance.

[mweb08]

I suppose I'm sharing it, because it's part of the conversation we're all having.

It doesn't make sense to address it to me, but thanks for sharing.

[weird-O]

I think it's reasonable for a voter to ignore the character clause for things like being a bad person off the field, since it's been ignored ever since the Hall opened, but to apply it for cheating at the game. Even if it wasn't explicitly against the rules at a particular time one can make a fair case that using something illegal that is performance enhancing is cheating via being illegal. 

 

Like Mackus says I would not approve of holding it against anyone where there is no evidence whatsoever of use.

 

If a voter held this view I would hope they would also have applied it to Gaylord Perry too. And such a voter would also have to address the widespread amphetamines use of the old days. If steroids is cheating that stuff is cheating. I recognize that opens up a whole can of worms.

 

Is one time enough? Routine use? I don't know, I'm not such a voter. Personally I would let them all in.

The bolded sentence brought a question to my mind. What if the wrier(s) in question, has knowledge of PED use by a player on the ballot, and chooses not to vote for them, even though there were no positive drug tests. That seems reasonable to me. I assume these guys have insider info. So even if there wasn't a positive test, they still know that the player was juicing. There's a story about a team packing up to leave town after a series. A player had a small bag outside of his locker. A teammate accidentally kicked it over, and multiple viles rolled out onto the clubhouse floor. If I was the writer who witnessed that, I'd definitely consider that experience if that player showed up on the ballot.    

[mweb08]

I think it's reasonable for a voter to ignore the character clause for things like being a bad person off the field, since it's been ignored ever since the Hall opened, but to apply it for cheating at the game. Even if it wasn't explicitly against the rules at a particular time one can make a fair case that using something illegal that is performance enhancing is cheating via being illegal.

Like Mackus says I would not approve of holding it against anyone where there is no evidence whatsoever of use.

If a voter held this view I would hope they would also have applied it to Gaylord Perry too. And such a voter would also have to address the widespread amphetamines use of the old days. If steroids is cheating that stuff is cheating. I recognize that opens up a whole can of worms.

Is one time enough? Routine use? I don't know, I'm not such a voter. Personally I would let them all in.

Yeah, other than for steroids for steroid era players, it's been ignored by voters on both fronts:the character off the field and on it.

Perry is a good example.

[mweb08]

Why can’t things be judged on their own, in its own environment, without comparing it to things that are incomparable, like what we don’t in our regular jobs, what happens in everyday life, or how we feel about other sports?

I think cheating to gain an advantage in baseball and in football should be considered equally wrong.

Obviously there are degrees to cheating, so not all cheating is equal, but I don't know why we should look the other way in one sport when it comes to accolades, but be harsh in another. Other than sentiment that is.

[makoman]

The bolded sentence brought a question to my mind. What if the wrier(s) in question, has knowledge of PED use by a player on the ballot, and chooses not to vote for them, even though there were no positive drug tests. That seems reasonable to me. I assume these guys have insider info. So even if there wasn't a positive test, they still know that the player was juicing. There's a story about a team packing up to leave town after a series. A player had a small bag outside of his locker. A teammate accidentally kicked it over, and multiple viles rolled out onto the clubhouse floor. If I was the writer who witnessed that, I'd definitely consider that experience if that player showed up on the ballot.    

That's interesting. I'd prefer not to rely on secret evidence, if it's important enough to change your vote it should be important enough to write an article about, as a journalist. Like McGwire's andro bottle. Then the guy has an opportunity to get his side of the story out there (I only tried it once! It was B12! or it's perfectly legal and allowed and here's why...) and everyone can then decide what they want to believe.

 

Of course if you (as the writer) never publicized it I suppose you could just not vote for the guy and not give out your reasons. The HOFer who deserves to be unanimous is so rare that any voter can pretty plausibly decline to vote for anybody without too much questioning about it.

[Mackus]

The bolded sentence brought a question to my mind. What if the wrier(s) in question, has knowledge of PED use by a player on the ballot, and chooses not to vote for them, even though there were no positive drug tests. That seems reasonable to me. I assume these guys have insider info. So even if there wasn't a positive test, they still know that the player was juicing. There's a story about a team packing up to leave town after a series. A player had a small bag outside of his locker. A teammate accidentally kicked it over, and multiple viles rolled out onto the clubhouse floor. If I was the writer who witnessed that, I'd definitely consider that experience if that player showed up on the ballot.    

 

Nope.  That's not a credible reason to withhold a vote, IMO.  It's public knowledge or it isn't.  Specifically to the example you give, that writer has no idea what's in the vials or if any of the contents ever made it into any player.  Could be insulin.  Could be B12.  Could be morphine.  Could be legal, could be illegal.  That's not information credible enough to be worthy of excluding someone from the HoF, IMO.

[Mike in STL]

I think cheating to gain an advantage in baseball and in football should be considered equally wrong.

Obviously there are degrees to cheating, so not all cheating is equal, but I don't know why we should look the other way in one sport when it comes to accolades, but be harsh in another. Other than sentiment that is.

Is anyone suggesting we put PED users in the football HOF but not in the baseball HOF?

[Mackus]

Is anyone suggesting we put PED users in the football HOF but not in the baseball HOF?

 

I am.  Or at least saying that it'd be reasonable for a person to consider PED use in baseball to be more problematic to a player's HOF credentials than PED use in football.  I'm not sure I think that, but I don't think it's an unreasonable opinion.

[mweb08]

Is anyone suggesting we put PED users in the football HOF but not in the baseball HOF?

I introduced this angle myself to point out that we should be consistent. Not just with steroids, but with all instances of breaking rules to gain an advantage. So no, I was not responding to anyone suggesting that. I would though guess that plenty of people do think that, in part due to the reason Mack gave.

[Mike in STL]

I introduced this angle myself to point out that we should be consistent. Not just with steroids, but with all instances of breaking rules to gain an advantage. So no, I was not responding to anyone suggesting that. I would though guess that plenty of people do think that, in part due to the reason Mack gave.

Just for some clarification, I don’t know your stance on voting. Are you voting for Bonds, Clemens, A-Rod, Man-Ram?

[mweb08]

Just for some clarification, I don’t know your stance on voting. Are you voting for Bonds, Clemens, A-Rod, Man-Ram?

Yes.

And yes to football players that we know used steroids.

And yes to Brady and Belichick even though they were punished by the NFL for cheating.

[Mike in STL]

Yes.

And yes to football players that we know used steroids.

And yes to Brady and Belichick even though they were punished by the NFL for cheating.

That’s fine. So am I. But if you seek consistency in all these other areas you brought up, are you going to give an A grade on a students test that you caught them cheating on, or one that uses plagiarism to complete a paper?

[TwentyThirtyFive]

Lets make sure we get Billy Wagner a big bump this year.

[mweb08]

That’s fine. So am I. But if you seek consistency in all these other areas you brought up, are you going to give an A grade on a students test that you caught them cheating on, or one that uses plagiarism to complete a paper?

Interesting analogy.

No I wouldn't give a student an A on something they cheated on. However if a student was easily an A student the whole year other than a time or two where they cheated, yes I would think an A is appropriate if that's what their overall grade came to. If they cheated all the time and got caught consistently, they obviously wouldn't get the A, just like a player wouldn't make the HOF because they were suspended too often.

Now you may say that some of these guys consistently used PEDs, or at least likely did, and sure that's probably right. I don't think the analogy is quite apt when we extend it there. It would be more apt if students were using drugs to improve their performance, which certainly happens. That's what's happening in baseball and other sports, improving performance. That's far from a student that would otherwise flunk a test acing it because they looked up the answers or stole the key. Same with plagiarizing an essay. Those students are not actually producing great results, they're straight up stealing them. Bonds, Clemens, and the rest got an advantage (which most others partook in as well) and then still actually had to put those gains to work on the playing field. That's more akin to taking uppers to concentrate better and longer as mentioned or certain kids having access to tutors and better resources than other kids. Those kids generally still get the A's if their results in class dictate it.

[makoman]

Yeah you can fail a kid on a particular test (or suspend a particular player a certain number of games) but his overall academic (or playing) career is still excellent.

You don’t tell him he can’t graduate cause you caught him cheating once freshman year. (Some schools may have zero tolerance policies but MLB hasn’t done that)

You certainly don’t tell him, hey we caught Barry and Alex and Mark cheating, so nobody in this class is going to graduate cause you all probably did it too.

If you do catch him cheating a number of times, then that starts to reflect on his overall performance.

If you suspect he was cheating the whole time but you have no proof, maybe you need to work on a better way to get proof.