Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

ESPN Reporting: Highly possible no one voted into the HOF this year

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

U L Washington Rookie

Active member
Dec 7, 2012
1,623
0
D Town
That's not my point. My only problem is the writers using PEDs, to-the-man, as a bar for enshrinement, yet still just guessing about it. Unless there is proof, none of these writer's opinions on who used should be a factor. So either no one from that era gets a vote, or they ALL do, based solely on their stats.

Again, you cannot have an "opinion" that someone did or did not use PEDs; they either did or did not as a fact. Anyone who votes on an assumption is wrong.

And there's little chance that a truly innocent person can prove innocence to those who want to not believe him. So you end up in a sort of witch hunt when going on assumptions. That doesn't do any good.
 

andy88c

New member
Dec 21, 2012
75
0
Nashville, TN
The writers are just making a statement against steroid use by not giving any of those guys first-ballot. In a couple of years, they will let them in. Next year's numbers will be more telling. You think Bagwell or Piazza are surer bets than Bonds? They had much higher %s this year. It's just the voters making a statement on Bonds and Clemens. The thing is...Bonds was the best hitter by far for quite a few years...the Steroid Era, obviously, but he was the best and it was almost Ruth-like. He was the best of a generation that was IMO, in which at least a majority of players were on PEDs of some sort. This is like the Lance Armstrong Tour de France crap. Yeah...Armstrong juiced...but so did EVERYONE in the top 20 or something like that. I think it's completely wrong what they did stripping him, obviously.

The best players of a generation should certainly be in the HOF. Well, the last generation had hitters (and pitchers) heavy on steroids. Does this mean that the pitchers who threw spitballs get thrown out of the Hall because spitballs aren't legal? Ed Walsh innovated the spitball in the early 1900s. Later, it was banned. I think pitchers who used it in the past were given exemptions and could continue doing so, but Walsh is in the Hall of Fame. Additionally, what about a guy like Gaylord Perry? The man CLEARLY doctored the hell out of everything and used vaseline, amongst other things to do so. There are numerous other things that used to happen in games that are illegal now.

It's kind of ironic, but the media and public's attention over all the home runs being hit just fed the system. MLB just had to turn a blind eye because interest in the sport was getting so crazy. Remember McGwire/Sosa?

Bonds will get in the HOF eventually. He's just the poster boy for steroids. It also doesn't help that he was Albert Belle-like to the media. They mostly hate him. Except maybe Pedro Gomez haha.
 
Last edited:

Mighty Bombjack

Active member
Aug 7, 2008
6,115
12
That's right, andro.

Creatine is legal for the rest of us, but not in baseball anymore.

Which reminds me, why do the people keep saying that "Player X did steroids before baseball banned them." Um, yes, but it's been illegal to take steroids without a prescription for decades. I hate that argument.
OK, specific anabolic steroids were made illegal under federal law in 1991 (I believe). This was a very specific list that has since been altered. Is that your point? If so, I will ask: who took what substances on that list without a prescription, and when did they do it? We would all love to know if you or anyone has this information. I don't think anybody does, so I wonder why you bring up the point at all.
 

Austin

Well-known member
Aug 7, 2008
5,706
41
Dallas, Texas
Note that all the other terms besides character and integrity reference the game. Those two don't, and thus it's not clear that those two are to be considered only as they relate to baseball. I believe, unless you have proof otherwise, my point stands.
Not true. Writers are informed of the rules' details.
Hall of Fame President, Jeff Idelson, was on the MLB Network today to explain what the voting guidelines mean and how writers are instructed to vote.
He said, quoting from my recorded show, "Character, integrity and sportsmanship are meant to mean how the player addressed the game on the field. It's not meant to be addressing somebody's social skills. It's how they addressed the game. Did they respect the game."
Tom Verducci questioned him further, and Idelson says it's been "game only" character and integrity since the first vote in 1936.
 

D-Lite

New member
Nov 10, 2010
1,872
0
SF Peninsula
OK, specific anabolic steroids were made illegal under federal law in 1991 (I believe). This was a very specific list that has since been altered. Is that your point? If so, I will ask: who took what substances on that list without a prescription, and when did they do it? We would all love to know if you or anyone has this information. I don't think anybody does, so I wonder why you bring up the point at all.
My point is where to draw the line.

And the list of Schedule III Controlled Substances includes a very large list that is not specific:
(A) The substance is chemically related to testosterone;
(B) the substance is pharmacologically related to testosterone;
(C) the substance is not an estrogen, progestin, or a corticosteroid; and
(D) the substance is not dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA).

Any substance that meets the criteria is considered an anabolic steroid and must be listed as a schedule III controlled substance. DEA finds that boldione, desoxymethyltestosterone, and 19-nor-4,9(10)- androstadienedione meet this definition of anabolic steroid and is adding them to the list of anabolic steroids in 21 CFR 1300.01(b)(4)
They name a few, but the definition is broad. Basically, so-called designer steroids have been illegal for 22 years now, federally. I agree that confirmed positive users of steroids should be out of the Hall, but I'm not supporting the suspected users for the same "not banned by baseball" argument that some are using. It's an argument that isn't really helping the side of the "suspected users".
 

U L Washington Rookie

Active member
Dec 7, 2012
1,623
0
D Town
Not true. Writers are informed of the rules' details.
Hall of Fame President, Jeff Idelson, was on the MLB Network today to explain what the voting guidelines mean and how writers are instructed to vote.
He said, quoting from my recorded show, "Character, integrity and sportsmanship are meant to mean how the player addressed the game on the field. It's not meant to be addressing somebody's social skills. It's how they addressed the game. Did they respect the game."
Tom Verducci questioned him further, and Idelson says it's been "game only" character and integrity since the first vote in 1936.

Thanks.

That's fine and works for me. And was pretty much what I was asking for from the start - a reference to clear descriptions of that rule. Again, thanks for the info. But for anyone just reading the website, the clarity is not there. That was my point. Not all interested people were tuned in to the show you're referencing.

for the record, there do exist professions where 'off field' ethics and such do impact opportunities for awards and such like the HoF, so extra clarity here is welcome. I'm pretty sure Football HoF works that way (recall discussion of Michael Irvin's HoF candidacy).
 

Mighty Bombjack

Active member
Aug 7, 2008
6,115
12
My point is where to draw the line.

And the list of Schedule III Controlled Substances includes a very large list that is not specific:

They name a few, but the definition is broad. Basically, so-called designer steroids have been illegal for 22 years now, federally. I agree that confirmed positive users of steroids should be out of the Hall, but I'm not supporting the suspected users for the same "not banned by baseball" argument that some are using. It's an argument that isn't really helping the side of the "suspected users".
You've got a lot of detail here. My question is the most important detail of all: who took what when, and how do you know? Please feel free to list any and all players, along with the substances taken, and the time of use or testing. I will do the legwork of varifying the legality of said substances at that time. Thanks in advance.
 

D-Lite

New member
Nov 10, 2010
1,872
0
SF Peninsula
Thanks.

That's fine and works for me. And was pretty much what I was asking for from the start - a reference to clear descriptions of that rule. Again, thanks for the info. But for anyone just reading the website, the clarity is not there. That was my point. Not all interested people were tuned in to the show you're referencing.

for the record, there do exist professions where 'off field' ethics and such do impact opportunities for awards and such like the HoF, so extra clarity here is welcome. I'm pretty sure Football HoF works that way (recall discussion of Michael Irvin's HoF candidacy).

The comical thing about that is I'm pretty sure the NFL HoF doesn't care about PED use.
 

uniquebaseballcards

New member
Nov 12, 2008
6,783
0
That's not my point. My only problem is the writers using PEDs, to-the-man, as a bar for enshrinement, yet still just guessing about it. Unless there is proof, none of these writer's opinions on who used should be a factor. So either no one from that era gets a vote, or they ALL do, based solely on their stats.

Again, you cannot have an "opinion" that someone did or did not use PEDs; they either did or did not as a fact. Anyone who votes on an assumption is wrong.

I see what you're saying. But its also someone's "opinion" that a candidate's numbers are hall-worthy, that his contributions to his team(s) are hall-worthy, etc. What proof is there that a 500 home run hitter is a HOFer? All the criteria are like this. One can subjectively determine whether a player used PEDs just like anything else - through stat explosions, rumors, unusual physical attributes, being brought to court, etc.

I'd add that not only do voters need to determine whether a candidate may have taken PEDs, but also determine to what extent PED usage was responsible for his performance. If Bonds only used PEDs for a total of ten days throughout his career he'd more than likely been in the HOF.
 

D-Lite

New member
Nov 10, 2010
1,872
0
SF Peninsula
You've got a lot of detail here. My question is the most important detail of all: who took what when, and how do you know? Please feel free to list any and all players, along with the substances taken, and the time of use or testing. I will do the legwork of varifying the legality of said substances at that time. Thanks in advance.

You do realize that I agree with your prior posts in this thread, yes?
D-Lite said:
In fact, how many players that would easily be in the Hall if not for perception have actually tested positive for anything?
I'm not saying I know and I do agree that writers that are voting based on what THEY suspect to be the truth in the absence of real facts are ruining the process. My point with the post about legality of steroids as whether or not a player should be inducted was merely to show that I believe that argument is similarly weak. Whether a substance was banned by baseball or not shouldn't pale in comparison with the larger governing body and should therefore be considered in the discussion of a player's candidacy.
 

D-Lite

New member
Nov 10, 2010
1,872
0
SF Peninsula
I see what you're saying. But its also someone's "opinion" that a candidate's numbers are hall-worthy, that his contributions to his team(s) are hall-worthy, etc. What proof is there that a 500 home run hitter is a HOFer? All the criteria are like this. One can subjectively determine whether a player used PEDs just like anything else - through stat explosions, rumors, unusual physical attributes, being brought to court, etc.

I'd add that not only do voters need to determine whether a candidate may have taken PEDs, but also determine to what extent PED usage was responsible for his performance. If Bonds only used PEDs for a total of ten days throughout his career he'd more than likely been in the HOF.
How can one determine if they MAY have? hive's point is you did or didn't, as far as candidacy. And a writer, unless this is investigative journalism, shouldn't be determining any of what you state, only voting based on the evidence and stats at hand. At that level, you should be able to even distinguish between supposed users. A player is or isn't a Hall of Famer, which is your first point above.
Bonds? Yes, HoF, with or without PEDs.
McGwire? Likely no, since his career was in free fall before the obvious signs of use then the 70 HRs.
Clemens? Yes, great numbers before suspected use
 

Mighty Bombjack

Active member
Aug 7, 2008
6,115
12
You do realize that I agree with your prior posts in this thread, yes?

I'm not saying I know and I do agree that writers that are voting based on what THEY suspect to be the truth in the absence of real facts are ruining the process. My point with the post about legality of steroids as whether or not a player should be inducted was merely to show that I believe that argument is similarly weak. Whether a substance was banned by baseball or not shouldn't pale in comparison with the larger governing body and should therefore be considered in the discussion of a player's candidacy.
Fair enough, but my beef is with MLB and the player's union on this one. A weakass memo saying "if it's against the law, it's against our rules" doesn't cut it and I don't want to punish players who worked under that "rule" while everyone (from owners to fans) were eating up the bulked up players and stats. You know how you ban something? Make a list of substances, say it doesn't matter if you have a script or not, and then lay out exact punishments for infractions. I can get on board with that and for punishing players who are proven to have used after 2004, as that's when a real rule was put into place.
 

uniquebaseballcards

New member
Nov 12, 2008
6,783
0
How can one determine if they MAY have? hive's point is you did or didn't, as far as candidacy. And a writer, unless this is investigative journalism, shouldn't be determining any of what you state, only voting based on the evidence and stats at hand. At that level, you should be able to even distinguish between supposed users. A player is or isn't a Hall of Famer, which is your first point above.
Bonds? Yes, HoF, with or without PEDs.
McGwire? Likely no, since his career was in free fall before the obvious signs of use then the 70 HRs.
Clemens? Yes, great numbers before suspected use

The whole vote is and has always been a subjective judgment call; concrete proof of any sort isn't necessary nor is it required by the voting rules. That's not a bad thing though given the large numbers of voters. Voters do the best they can with the instructions they're given: rule 5. How they interpret rule 5 is up to them, but they are still supposed to abide by it.

But Bonds and Clemens clearly lacked character and integrity according to the voters... and who is to say any particular voter is *wrong* for thinking Bonds and Clemens NEVER had character and integrity... even before they started using PEDs? If they had character and integrity they wouldn't have started using PEDs in the first place.
 

Mighty Bombjack

Active member
Aug 7, 2008
6,115
12
The whole vote is and has always been a subjective judgment call; concrete proof of any sort isn't necessary nor is it required by the voting rules. That's not a bad thing though given the large numbers of voters. Voters do the best they can with the instructions they're given: rule 5. How they interpret rule 5 is up to them, but they are still supposed to abide by it.

I really wonder if you will be singing this same tune when Bonds and Clemens are voted in. I hope so, as it will still be true.
 

shayscards79

New member
Aug 17, 2010
3,166
0
Chicago
Funny how there's no speculation surrounding Craig Biggio. Also comical how the writers are protesting or whatever. Pretty sure every single one of them were praising the homerun chase between McGuire and Sosa, all loving Barry Bonds and this-and-that. For one, I don't think that you should not include the steroid users. Not one of us didn't love that era so why neglect it now?

And I'll say this, too... the fact that Piazza will not be elected in his first-year is absolutely pathetic.

I'm going to go ahead and chime in with my unpopular option because I agree with you and say that Bonds and Clemens deserve to get in and should have been voted in. They have HOF numbers. Period.

We had an era of baseball where people cheating, but the majority of them were cheating. I could see if one guy was juicing and blowing away the competition to have a huge uproar... but it wasn't, it was just how the game was played. Bonds still won 6 mvps, Clemens still won Cy Youngs, before and after the roids.

You can say what you want about their integrity but it honestly saved baseball back then. I was in the XXXXter from being shut down. People have the right to talk about how padded their stats were.. that's fair to comment on that aspect.. but people love home runs, and lots of them. They brought the game back from the depths. It may not have been right, they didn't play by the rules. But I wouldn't be shocked in the least bit if it was a wholesale conspiracy by MLB to allow the live ball era to happen and I don't think the players are entirely to blame.
 

nappyd

Active member
Sep 24, 2012
1,207
0
It'd like to see Barry bonds added, just so they can have an exhibit with his hat from when he started out with the pirates and then the larger one from when he played with the giants, showing how his skull grew as he used.



Sent from my SCH-I535 using Freedom Card Board mobile app
 

Members online

Top