SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Writers elect no one to the HOF
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Jan 9, 2013 14:20:43 GMT -5
No Hall of Fame class this year.
Quick everybody hide the morality police is running around.
I surely hope that when Pedro is on the ballot he's elected with no doubt but with all this idiots voting it may no happen.
|
|
|
Post by remember04 on Jan 9, 2013 14:39:48 GMT -5
No Hall of Fame class this year. Quick everybody hide the morality police is running around. I surely hope that when Pedro is on the ballot he's elected with no doubt but with all this idiots voting it may no happen. I was just coming to post this link and possibly start a new thread about it espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8828339/no-players-elected-baseball-hall-fame-writersIt is an interesting debate as these hitters supposedly are doing this against pitchers who are on steroids as well. That leads to the debate of how much does it really help. HGH for keeping healthy and fresh I'd say is more of a concern than testosterone as it keeps you from wearing down over the course of a season where as the argument over how much farther a baseball goes off the bat of somebody on steroids is tough to determine. They definitely don't help you square up and make good solid contact. As a note though pedrogrande as you are Dominican is that here in the states (don't know if you still live in the Dominican or if you came to the US and when) steroids frowned upon as a whole a lot more. You're on the youngish side so I don't know how much you've of the life of Lyle Alzado for example. These are banned substances for a reason. Also I can't see anyway in hell Pedro isn't a first ballot hall of famer. People look for things to determine steroid use and where it started for example Clemens seemingly looking on the downside of his career before he went to Toronto then all of a sudden having a major bounce back. Pedro eventually declined before his time really because of his small frame. In my opinion and this is just that if he were on HGH for example that would've been a much slower decline so something like that proves to me at least he's clean.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jan 9, 2013 14:59:55 GMT -5
This needs its own thread. Steroid-tainted stars Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Sammy Sosa were denied entry to baseball's Hall of Fame, with voters failing to elect any candidates for only the second time in four decades.
Bonds received just 36.2 percent of the vote, Clemens 37.6 and Sosa 12.5 in totals announced Wednesday by the Hall and the Baseball Writers' Association of America. They were appearing on the ballot for the first time and have up to 14 more years to make it to Cooperstown.
Craig Biggio, 20th on the career list with 3,060 hits, topped the 37 candidates with 68.2 percent of the 569 ballots, 39 shy of the 75 percent needed. Among other first-year eligibles, Mike Piazza received 57.8 percent and Curt Schilling 38.8. espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8828339/baseball-hall-fame-fails-add-new-member-2013
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jan 9, 2013 15:01:29 GMT -5
Also of note: Kenny Lofton dropped off the ballot, which is a shame, considering he his a better player than many of the center fielders already in Cooperstown.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Jan 9, 2013 15:23:23 GMT -5
I would love to see if they publish how many voters left their ballots blank. It's an understandable, but weird quirk of the HOF votes that you can send in a blank ballot and it will count towards the percentage of the votes needed. However, if you send in a ballot with more than 10 votes your ballot is invalidated thereby shrinking the pool. Many voters apparently decided to boycott the vote (for various reason) this year by sending in blank ballots. I would be curious to see how much that effected the percentages for the other candidates. For example: would Biggio (68.2) and Morris (67.7) have made it in if instead of sending blank ballots, the boycotters had instead voted for more than 10?
|
|
|
Post by gatortough on Jan 9, 2013 15:32:23 GMT -5
I would love to see if they publish how many voters left their ballots blank ben_lindbergh: BBWAA conference call: there were only five blank ballots, fewer than last year (nine).
|
|
|
Post by JP Kitson on Jan 9, 2013 16:24:28 GMT -5
Also of note: Kenny Lofton dropped off the ballot, which is a shame, considering he his a better player than many of the center fielders already in Cooperstown. I can't believe Lofton is off the ballot next year. He is a no doubt Hall of Famer in my eyes. He has the 104th highest Career WAR of all-time, higher then over 100 players already in the Hall of Fame. The BBWAA is an absolute joke and the Hall of Fame needs to take the voting out of their hands.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 9, 2013 17:02:26 GMT -5
That's embarrassing. What else can you even say about it? If you can't identify Mike Piazza as a clear HOFer, you have no business voting in the first place. There's nothing else to even say about it. The good news is, it costs the Hall of Fame a lot of money when they don't induct anyone, so expect big changes in the voting process coming soon.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 9, 2013 17:12:26 GMT -5
As JP points out, it isn't just the new "names" who got shorted. Players such as Tim Raines and Edgar Martinez are some of the best who've ever played the game and they're barely pulling a third of the ballots? The HOF process is really disfunctional at this point. Voters are so disconnected from even a minimal understanding of how to value career performance it's hard to watch.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Jan 9, 2013 17:34:24 GMT -5
Sadly I don't think they will change. MLB already came out with a statement basically endorsing it. If you want to debate about Bonds, Clemens, Sosa thats fine but there are more players who deserve to get in(those players deserve it too but thats too much to ask apparently) players like Edgar Martinez, Biggio, Bagwell, Piazza, Crime Dog and while I didn't see Raines play the studies from people who know more than I do suggest that he was a notch below Ricky Henderson but Henderson is a freak one of the top players in the Hall of Fame so thats no knock its a complement yet its being held against him.
Now the have a cluster f'd ballot with more players that probably deserve to be in than spots.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 9, 2013 18:01:27 GMT -5
Tim Raines is barely behind, barely, only Henderson as the greatest leadoff man I ever saw, a mind-boggling combo of speed, power, hitting prowess, and discipline. He played the game at a near unimaginable level. Just another crime perpetrated by the HOF voters.
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Jan 9, 2013 19:40:17 GMT -5
The BBWAA is an absolute joke and the Hall of Fame needs to take the voting out of their hands. This. Too many voters perverting this process, using it as a platform to generate column after meaningless column about things that have nothing to do with baseball and even less to do with tangible facts. It's a game, but even more than that it's an entertainment product. These writers launching themselves into the moral pulpit to preach their outrage while denying many worthy candidates a deserved honor is ridiculous. It was true in our school days and it's true now: just because you know a few big words doesn't mean you're an intelligent person. Be gone, BBWAA, you've proven yourself inept at your task.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Jan 9, 2013 20:13:01 GMT -5
PEDs obviously have clouded the water for HOF voting. That is indeed unfortunate in the abstract and for those who might have been clean during the so-called steroid era. But did not the players bring this situation upon themselves by either drugging or remaining silent to the situation as Curt Shilling publicly said today?
I respect and support the current vote and find it personally and morally gratifying.
The HOF has a clause that puts emphasis on Integrity. That clause, unaltered over time, has resulted in the exclusion of Shoeless Joe Jackson, Pete Rose and perhaps others from admittance...players that otherwise had more than requisite and legitimate statistical credentials.
All players want to be the best that they can be and some choose (and will continue to choose) artificial means as they become available to achieve or maintain performance level for as long as possible. There is, today, an obvious monetary incentive as well.
But, the so-called HOF 'morals clause' exists for a reason. IMO if players do not adhere to that standard, they should not be given HOF consideration. I say this whether or not their stats before suspicion or accepted damning test results, would otherwise qualify them. And, I don't give credence to the position that others during that time might have been using as well. Tough.
To me Integrity is the cornerstone of the game across the board. If that standard is abandoned, then I will cease to be a fan.
Otherwise give carte blanche to every team and hope that your team has the best chemist. Is that what people want in the quest to finish first and nominate your team's player(s)? If so, where is the legitimate gratification?
I certainly don't want to be a part of that world.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 9, 2013 20:55:30 GMT -5
Was Tom Yawkey's integrity discussed when he was inducted? There are straight up bigots in the hall of fame, sorry, I don't find taking steroids a bigger morality/integrity issue than executives who systematically discriminated against people based on race. The hall of fame has plaques of many bad people, picking this issue to stress the "morality" clause is inconsistent at best.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 9, 2013 21:01:54 GMT -5
Sadly I don't think they will change. MLB already came out with a statement basically endorsing it. Doesn't matter. The Hall of Fame needs inductees because they need induction ceremonies, which A) get a lot of people to drive to upstate New York and B) represent the only real national exposure (ie, marketing) that the Hall ever gets. They will not tolerate a system that refuses to elect new HOFers.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 9, 2013 21:13:31 GMT -5
Very sad. Between the "I won't let this guy be a first ballot HOFer even though he should be a HOFer", the "well he played in the steroid era, so he might have done steroids" argument, to the idiots who simply don't understand stats, it's a darn shame the writers couldn't take their heads out of their sphincters and make some rational decisions.
There's no real reason why Craig Biggio shouldn't have been inducted. None whatsoever. The "guilt" possibility of Bagwell and Piazza are keeping out two guys who should be in the HOF. Are the writers thinking that a smoking gun is going to come out in the next fifteen years that proves or disproves their assumed guilt?
The writers can't figure out that Tim Raines is one of the greatest leadoff men of all-time?
(On a another note, I believe Luis Tiant and Dwight Evans should be in the HOF, too.)
Why wouldn't Curt Schilling get voted in? With K/BB ratio, his ERA in the era he played in and his post-season record, you'd think he'd get more consideration.
Why does Fred McGriff get screwed? Because he missed 500 HRs (when it actually meant something) by 7? Why do they ignore his OBP and Slugging figures? Didn't think he was enough of an impact player? This guy made a huge difference in the 1993 NL West division race once Atlanta acquired him.
I guess Maddux and Glavine won't get in next year because they'd be 1st ballot HOFers and that shouldn't be for a pitcher unless he wins 500 games?
I guess Pedro has to wait too because he barely topped 200 wins? And he, too, played in the wrong era?
This is a joke. I totally get keeping Bonds and Clemens out, at least for awhile, and I get the thought that Sosa and McGwire wouldn't have been HOFers if not for the juice, unless Bonds and Clemens who were already shoo-ins prior to their cheating. And I get saying the heck with Palmeiro and eventually Manny because they cheated after there was actually a policy put in place - but punishing others that really had nothing to do with it - to me is disgraceful.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 9, 2013 21:23:28 GMT -5
Hey, if we're keep guys out of the hall because of the era they played in, can we withhold the votes of all the writers who covered baseball in 1998 and gushed about the Greatest Season Ever and never asked any questions? Aren't those guys always telling us about how much they know from being around the team and in the locker room?
The baseball media turned a blind eye to steroids for years, and by and large they've never acknowledged that failure. But they're happy to punish someone like Bagwell or Piazza on purely circumstantial evidence. It's perverse.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Jan 9, 2013 21:39:13 GMT -5
Morality. Get off the high horse man.
Ty Cobb a known racist is in the Hall of Fame, Micky Mantle known to booze out of his behind and do all sorts of stuff is in there and there are a bunch of other who have done worst things than take a freaking steroid.
But my point wasn't to defend the steroid guys. I'm saying there are other player that were on this ballot that the deserve to be in and have nothing morally to be held against them unless you are saying that Tim Raines should be held morally accountable for owners colluding against him back in the day.
A good question that was asked by someone on twitter was who were the guys that voted Clemens and Bonds 7 times for CY and MVP? The same guys that are holding their pitchforks like an angry mob. The height of it was someone mentioning on MLBN that memorabilia belonging to all these "users" would be in the Hall of Fame anyways even if they are no inducted. That would the height of hypocrisy because you are telling me that the Hall is gonna profit from their achievements but they are not inducted because their achievements are fraudulent? or because of some morality mob mentality? Come on man.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Jan 9, 2013 21:43:53 GMT -5
A disgrace considering how many worthy nominees there were.
I think there is a valid argument for upholding the integrity criteria; the Hall can have an exhibit on Rose or McGwire & Sosa without those players being honored as HOFers.
But you've still got Piazza, Biggio, Raines, Schilling, Trammell to induct at least.
|
|
|
Post by templeusox on Jan 9, 2013 21:49:24 GMT -5
At what point do we say: hey, it's just sports? Steroids aren't the end of the world,. Cooperstown would be a much more interesting place with all these guys in.
|
|
|
Post by mantush on Jan 9, 2013 21:57:46 GMT -5
Why is character even considered during Hall of Fame voting? I don't understand it. Are we supposed to be upset with Bonds for doping and ruining* the sport for kids? Why haven't we ousted Cobb for fighting with paraplegics, fans, and being racist?
*Bonds was the one that got me interested in the sport. He made it exciting. It's like Lance Armstrong and cycling. Even though he doped, his accomplishments are still amazing and inspired millions of Americans to take up cycling as a recreational hobby/sport. Just because Bonds cheated and Armstrong doped, we didn't stop loving the sport that they made us love - we developed a new outlook and moved on with our lives, but that passion is still there.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Jan 9, 2013 22:32:27 GMT -5
Why is character even considered during Hall of Fame voting? I don't understand it. It's a Hall of Fame, not a Hall of Infamy. The criteria is heavily weighted toward character, like it or not, presumably because hitting a few more or fewer home runs ultimately pales in comparison to playing with integrity. It's a matter of what you value, and who should be held up as a model player: the racist or doper or cheat who set records, or the star who played by the rules and set an example for others? *Bonds was the one that got me interested in the sport. He made it exciting Bonds was a great, exciting player. Then he juiced and turned himself into a monster. Monsters are exciting, to be sure, but Radatz aside, that's not baseball. Maybe the Hall should add a wing and call it the Wing of Infamy, and move Cobb there and add Bonds and ARod and the Rocket and my boy Manny. Or not. But there's nothing to stop others from creating rival Halls with their own criteria.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jan 9, 2013 22:41:14 GMT -5
One problem the hall is going to face (in my opinion the larger problem and the one most easily fixed) is that the writers are limited to voting for ten players. The ballot is now be coming more crowded than it has been since the 1940s (when the hall of fame was electing stars for the previous 50+ years). As the ballot becomes more crowded next year, with Maddux and Glavine, guys like Schilling and Biggio might actually lose votes instead of being elected.
The crowding of the ballot might make it so no one gets elected in multiple years.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Jan 9, 2013 23:00:53 GMT -5
Can anyone answer this? When did steroids officially become banned from baseball? Wasn't that after 03.
Also why is Aaron and Ripken getting a free pass as they were suspect from the 70's and to the 90's (for Cal) when they began and continued the Greenies phase of drugs in the clubhouse... Which is also Verifiable by Canseco and Damon's admission of the greenies being freely available in a bowl right up front in all the clubhouses.
For all that why hasn't every writer demanded the owners return all the WS trophies were any player was suspected of greenies, cocaine, and steroid abuse. And why haven't they demanded the return of all post season revenue from those many teams?
The writers today need to be attacked for their lack of journalistic ability considering they apparently believed that they have the right to not vote for the superstars of one era but none of these other eras.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jan 9, 2013 23:25:37 GMT -5
Can anyone answer this? When did steroids officially become banned from baseball? Wasn't that after 03. The counter to this argument is obviously that since steroid use is illegal, the majors should not need have specific rules regarding their use. Laws obviously supersede the rules of MLB. I am sure we could think of underhanded/illegal things everyone would consider cheating that is not specifically banned by an MLB rule, but would breaking the laws of the US. Not saying I believe that the steroid users should be banned, but that specific argument is very weak. Also why is Aaron and Ripken getting a free pass as they were suspect from the 70's and to the 90's (for Cal) when they began and continued the Greenies phase of drugs in the clubhouse... Which is also Verifiable by Canseco and Damon's admission of the greenies being freely available in a bowl right up front in all the clubhouses. Steroids are believed by the writers to be performance enhancers, in the way that cocaine and "greenies" are not. Steroids do not change the ability of a player to hit for power or throw a fastball. Again not saying I believe that the steroid users should be banned, but that noting agin that this specific argument is very weak.
|
|
|