2013 HOF

[BBCgalaxee]

Can't stand bonds but he is a hof.

Guys stats HIGHLY suggest hgh kicked in starting in 2000.

Had he retired after 1999, he would be a first ballot hof.

 

[ThoseBackPages]

EVERYBODY GETS IN!!!

 

[MansGame]

Lock - Mike Piazza

Maybe - Craig Biggio and Curt Schilling

Never - Everyone else on your list

 

[200lbhockeyplayer]

The HOF class of 2013 should be the official departure period for credibility.

I wish the writers would stop selecting players and just vote for each other. Their eyes chose to overlook the glaring PED usage while they made their living off of it. To be unaware of usage was to be naive or unconcerned.

The writers who chose never to report on the rampant usage and who are know casting stones by not voting for Bonds and Clemens have zero integrity. Zero credibility and are total hypocrites.

Had they chosen to write and report honestly, have at it...but this is a comical farce.




Sent from a handheld, intergalactic communicator.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

The HOF class of 2013 should be the official departure period for credibility.

I wish the writers would stop selecting players and just vote for each other. Their eyes chose to overlook the glaring PED usage while they made their living off of it. To be unaware of usage was to be naive or unconcerned.

The writers who chose never to report on the rampant usage and who are know casting stones by not voting for Bonds and Clemens have zero integrity. Zero credibility and are total hypocrites.

Had they chosen to write and report honestly, have at it...but this is a comical farce.

You're completely precluding the fact that writers normally hold HOFers to a higher standard than regular MLB players.

As such its certainly reasonable for a writer to say, "Sure Mr. MLB Player, whether you take PEDs is up to you, but it will disqualify my voting for you for the HOF."

 

[Pinbreaker]

There are more players that they vote on besides those in your list..

2013 Official Hall of Fame Ballot - Baseball-Reference.com

 

[200lbhockeyplayer]

You're completely precluding the fact that writers normally hold HOFers to a higher standard than regular MLB players.

As such its certainly reasonable for a writer to say, "Sure Mr. MLB Player, whether you take PEDs is up to you, but it will disqualify my voting for you for the HOF."

Perhaps just as we should expect to hold HOF voters to a higher standard than a regular baseball writer.

The fact remains that every single hypocritical writer voting for the HOF was dead silent on performance enhancing drug usage while they were writing about the stellar achievements of players like Bonds and Clemens. Not one pursued any sort of basic investigation that might sully their own paycheck, limit their player access, or blackball them from the sport they perhaps loved. Not a writer, not an owner and not a commissioner. Not one player broke from the union and offered up drug tests to prove his innocence, nor did any make noise to rid the game of PEDs.

Their collective silence is collective guilt. The players. The management. The writers. Whether or not they used, they are all guilty of steroids being rampant in the game because they all allowed it.

For anyone involved in the game to claim ignorance about steroid usage is the same as declaring oneself as a mental halfwit.

 

[DaClyde]

Perhaps just as we should expect to hold HOF voters to a higher standard than a regular baseball writer.

---snip---
For anyone involved in the game to claim ignorance about steroid usage is the same as declaring oneself as a mental halfwit.

Agreed. Also, the Hall of Fame should institute a new policy stating that the submission of a blank ballot, for ANY reason, will be taken as a request to be removed from the list of eligible voters. I'm tired of hearing about protest votes. I believe there should have been several unanimous selections by now. That there aren't, because of morons and their wordless protests, is pathetic.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Perhaps just as we should expect to hold HOF voters to a higher standard than a regular baseball writer.

The fact remains that every single hypocritical writer voting for the HOF was dead silent on performance enhancing drug usage while they were writing about the stellar achievements of players like Bonds and Clemens. Not one pursued any sort of basic investigation that might sully their own paycheck, limit their player access, or blackball them from the sport they perhaps loved. Not a writer, not an owner and not a commissioner. Not one player broke from the union and offered up drug tests to prove his innocence, nor did any make noise to rid the game of PEDs.

Their collective silence is collective guilt. The players. The management. The writers. Whether or not they used, they are all guilty of steroids being rampant in the game because they all allowed it.

For anyone involved in the game to claim ignorance about steroid usage is the same as declaring oneself as a mental halfwit.

Perhaps writers who knew about PED abuses but didn't report it should not be allowed to be elected to a writer's HOF LOL... I don't see your connection here with writers and players as it pertains to HOF. Writers don't owe players anything and vice versa.

In order to vote for the HOF a writer just needs to be a BBWA member for 10 years or more; many HOF voters wouldn't have been active writers during the time the players they're voting on were playing. Should these new writers not be allowed to vote on players they never professionally wrote about?

 

[sportscardtheory]

Agreed. Also, the Hall of Fame should institute a new policy stating that the submission of a blank ballot, for ANY reason, will be taken as a request to be removed from the list of eligible voters. I'm tired of hearing about protest votes. I believe there should have been several unanimous selections by now. That there aren't, because of morons and their wordless protests, is pathetic.

What does it even matter. The best players will get in by wide margins regardless. Forcing someone to vote one way or the other seems ridiculous. Who cares if one or a couple idiots don't vote for deserving players. More power to them. They are the ones that look stupid. Forcing them to vote is clearly not the answer.

 

[DaClyde]

What does it even matter. The best players will get in by wide margins regardless. Forcing someone to vote one way or the other seems ridiculous. Who cares if one or a couple idiots don't vote for deserving players. More power to them. They are the ones that look stupid. Forcing them to vote is clearly not the answer.

If they have to be forced to vote, why are they even part of the process? Let them make idiots of themselves without the platform of the Hall of Fame.

 

[sportscardtheory]

If they have to be forced to vote, why are they even part of the process? Let them make idiots of themselves without the platform of the Hall of Fame.

If you force them to vote, why have them vote at all and just put in players that you want to put in. Forcing a vote means it's not a vote.

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

Perhaps writers who knew about PED abuses but didn't report it should not be allowed to be elected to a writer's HOF LOL... I don't see your connection here with writers and players as it pertains to HOF. Writers don't owe players anything and vice versa.

In order to vote for the HOF a writer just needs to be a BBWA member for 10 years or more; many HOF voters wouldn't have been active writers during the time the players they're voting on were playing. Should these new writers not be allowed to vote on players they never professionally wrote about?

The larger point here is that the PED usage problem was systemic in nature. It involved every layer of the game,including media and the fans. It was and continues to be a major part of the game and its history.

It will be duly represented as such by the inclusion of some of its participants (I believe it already has). Bonds and Clemens will be members, it will just take a little time. My guess is 5 years, but it may take a little longer and a younger generation of voters.

 

[200lbhockeyplayer]

Perhaps writers who knew about PED abuses but didn't report it should not be allowed to be elected to a writer's HOF LOL... I don't see your connection here with writers and players as it pertains to HOF. Writers don't owe players anything and vice versa.

In order to vote for the HOF a writer just needs to be a BBWA member for 10 years or more; many HOF voters wouldn't have been active writers during the time the players they're voting on were playing. Should these new writers not be allowed to vote on players they never professionally wrote about?

Huh? It's a 5-year waiting period to be up for induction, so every single HOF writer was a baseball writer when Bonds and Clemens were playing. All were also around before the Mitchell Report.

It's true that the writers do not owe the players anything and vice versa, but the writers owe the game and the fans some integrity. Not selective integrity.

The writers have a tremendous knack for building players up, and the same ability to swiftly knock them down with virtually the exact same information that they have had for years.

If writers started barking about PED usage in the game, how it greatly affects the history of the game and took a stand...then I'll buy them the nails to proceed with the crucifixion. But they didn't. As far as I'm concerned, the writers now crucifying players like Bonds and Clemens should be nailed to the back of the cross with those players.

 

[200lbhockeyplayer]

If you force them to vote, why have them vote at all and just put in players that you want to put in. Forcing a vote means it's not a vote.

Come on now. These clownish writers are making a statement...while never choosing to make a statement when it actually could have facilitated some change. It's a joke. It's hypocritical. And it's tiresome.

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

Come on now. These clownish writers are making a statement...while never choosing to make a statement when it actually could have facilitated some change. It's a joke. It's hypocritical. And it's tiresome.

You could replace "writers" with "fans" in this statement without altering its veracity.

 

[sportscardtheory]

Come on now. These clownish writers are making a statement...while never choosing to make a statement when it actually could have facilitated some change. It's a joke. It's hypocritical. And it's tiresome.

Then boycott the HOF and be done with it. Leave it to everyone who's not so hyper-critical.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

The larger point here is that the PED usage problem was systemic in nature. It involved every layer of the game,including media and the fans. It was and continues to be a major part of the game and its history.

It will be duly represented as such by the inclusion of some of its participants (I believe it already has). Bonds and Clemens will be members, it will just take a little time. My guess is 5 years, but it may take a little longer and a younger generation of voters.

Sure, it was a part of the game and its history, but that doesn't mean that it was OK for players - especially HOF players - to have taken PEDs. We're not talking all players in this thread, we're only talking about HOFers and potential HOFers. HOFers are held to a different standard.

Also, PEDs involve more than simple stats; stats are only one criteria/component of HOF voting - so yes there is some subjectivity involved here.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Perhaps writers who knew about PED abuses but didn't report it should not be allowed to be elected to a writer's HOF LOL... I don't see your connection here with writers and players as it pertains to HOF. Writers don't owe players anything and vice versa.

In order to vote for the HOF a writer just needs to be a BBWA member for 10 years or more; many HOF voters wouldn't have been active writers during the time the players they're voting on were playing. Should these new writers not be allowed to vote on players they never professionally wrote about?

Huh? It's a 5-year waiting period to be up for induction, so every single HOF writer was a baseball writer when Bonds and Clemens were playing. All were also around before the Mitchell Report.

It's true that the writers do not owe the players anything and vice versa, but the writers owe the game and the fans some integrity. Not selective integrity.

The writers have a tremendous knack for building players up, and the same ability to swiftly knock them down with virtually the exact same information that they have had for years.

If writers started barking about PED usage in the game, how it greatly affects the history of the game and took a stand...then I'll buy them the nails to proceed with the crucifixion. But they didn't. As far as I'm concerned, the writers now crucifying players like Bonds and Clemens should be nailed to the back of the cross with those players.

Its not that complicated, there have always been writers who never professionally wrote about the players they're voting on... are these writers not allowed to vote? I'm sure you'd agree this has happened with most candidates who have been on the ballot for more than five years - Blyleven is just one good example.

Your last statement here makes little sense as it comes to HOF voting. Furthermore, you make it seem that the writers who knew about PED abuses could easily write about such abuses and not face some kind of retribution. Not being a writer yourself you don't know what happened and are guessing, actually you (we) don't even know if all writers continue to write about any new abuses PED or non-PED. So what?

To 'the person on the street' it seems that you don't want writers to vote on candidates because they don't agree with your point-of-view on PEDs.

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

Sure, it was a part of the game and its history, but that doesn't mean that it was OK for players - especially HOF players - to have taken PEDs. We're not talking all players in this thread, we're only talking about HOFers and potential HOFers. HOFers are held to a different standard.

Also, PEDs involve more than simple stats; stats are only one criteria/component of HOF voting - so yes there is some subjectivity involved here.

There is big time subjectivity involved, which means a term like "OK" is far too simplistic for the discussion. Keep them all out? Let them all in? Use it as another criterium, given that we know almost nothing about who used hat when?