Saturday, April 27, 2013
Baseball Hall of Fame: Baseball’s Talent Finders Honored at New Museum Exhibit ‘Diamond Mines’
(baseballhall.org)
Read More...(COOPERSTOWN, NY) – For every Hall of Fame player, there’s a scout who started him on the road to Cooperstown. Now, those scouts will have their place at the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum. The Museum will unveil the new interactive exhibit Diamond Mines on May 4 with a cast of baseball luminaries on hand for the celebration. Diamond Mines, made possible with the support of the Scout of the Year Foundation, will begin a scheduled two-year run in the Museum’s second floor ...
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 1 of 2 pages
1 2 >"NO!"
It may have been the best thing to ever happen to the game. Those hearings began the downfall of the Roid Era, mainly because those hearings brought the players' union to its knees. What followed was a massive cleanup in baseball. The most powerful union in the land ran scared of the feds and caved on the topic of drug testing.
Sure -- PED use was all the Union's fault. As if no managers, front office people, and baseball organization higher-ups knew about this and looked the other way until a US Congress with apparently nothing better to do stuck its nose into this matter and made a big deal out of it.
A jury of 12 heard the latest case, supposedly 12 who had no great interest in baseball...Once the jury went behind closed doors, it quickly found Clemens innocent on all counts. But go back to the 2007, with the release of the Mitchell Report on steroids in baseball, a committee met for months to determine the depth of PED use in the game. These were all people with a great interest in baseball. That committee heard much of the same evidence as in the perjury trial, but when the Mitchell Report was released, Clemens was the shocking lead name as a major violator.
Is it just me, or wouldn't the jury "who had no great interest" potentially be more impartial and unbiased than one with "a great interest?"
..uh, mitchell report, feds questioning in regard to?
geez man, 10 hours and this woman wasn't disabused of these fantasies?
But yea, one thing you've got to say about turnips.
They're unbiased.
There's pretty much no way this is true, for anyone.
JUST WAIT TIL BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS RE-ELECTED!
Did they? I see no reason to think that they did. I would be very surprised if Mitchell did much digging into McNamee's background.
In other words, the baseball "jury" believed the word of Clemens' longtime personal trainer, Brian McNamee. The federal case jury did not.
Did baseball need a whipping boy and choose Clemens? Why would baseball do that and bring down one of the most fabled pitchers ever?
And why was McNamee not believed in this latest case? Did the courtroom work of Clemens' lawyer, Rusty Hardin, render him as a liar?
Perhaps it had to do with McNamee's every changing story since the Mitchell report. Or maybe it was because others, presumably not interviewed by the baseball "jury" contradicted McNamee. Or perhaps it was because even McNamee admitted that his story evolved.
And don't even get me started on the "Clemens and Pettitte were so close that if Pettitte used, Clemens must have" crap. If that were true, why did Pettitte, by his own admission, not tell Clemens about his use?
With that off my chest, I am glad to see him not lump Sosa in with the rest. I don't know if he used or not, but I need more than a single anonymous source and requesting a translator at a Congressional hearing.
Presumably what she was referring to was McNamee's explanation for why he suddenly produced needles and gauze, despite telling both Mitchell's people and the feds previously that he didn't have any other evidence.
I actually think AROD will have an easy time getting in despite admitting to using steroids.
It wasn't really a voluntary admission. I guess he's gets a pass for admitting it when people were already kind of sick of the whole thing.
POW! That's a bullseye.
Which just shows that the whole thing is an insane cluster ####.
Because they were transcendent stars before they ever started using? Take their careers before they were alleged to have started using, apply a "normal" aging pattern, and they're obvious HoFers. Their "clean" peaks were those of all-time greats. I don't know if the same can be said of McGwire, who was up-and-down performance-wise and had some injury issues before his (steroid-fueled) homer resurgence. That's simplifying things, I'm sure, but there's the difference.
I think dimly of Clemens and Bonds nowadays, but a HoF that doesn't include Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds, warts and all, isn't really worth the price of admission.
I kind of read this as being an ego-affirmation.."Look, everyone! I have a hall of fame vote! And Clemens isn't getting it! Even if he begs me!".
Agreed -- especially since the reason his name likely appears there is because of McNamee. And it's pretty clear how reliable a source he turned out to be.
Would there be information from anyone else that would have caused Clemens's name to appear in the Mitchell Report?
The conventional wisdom seems to be that Bonds started using after the 1999 season. We have no idea if that's true or not, but let's pretend that it is. Through 1999, Bonds put up 100.5 (BBRef) WAR. If he'd quit right then, he'd be 19th all time in WAR among position players, right behind Schmidt, Lajoie, and Frank Robinson, and just ahead of Joe Morgan. That's astonishing. We forget sometimes that the small-headed version of Barry Bonds was really, really good.
EDIT: Which is to say, the only excuse for not voting for Bonds is that you think that no one who ever took steroids should be in the Hall of Fame.
I wonder if we can get Brian McNamee to say that George Mitchell, Bob Ryan, Mike Lupica, Jon Heyman, Bud Selig, Mike Francesa, and Tom Verducci all cheat on their wives with hookers and do lines of coke while they're cheating.
I mean, what is the defense, at that point? It's Brian McNamee that is saying it. And McNamee can't be just making it all up.
Not a single person. I don't think even the morally bankrupt George Mitchell (he smeared the reputations of dozens of people) would go to print with "Andy Pettitte thinks that Clemens might have told him years ago that he used hgh, but Pettitte is not very sure about this."
Mitchell and Mitchellesque Reports are undertaken for the very purpose of confusing people like Randy Galloway.
Not only are the reports generally not authoritative -- their essential purpose is kicking blame for scandal down the management chain (*) -- the Mitchell Report is laughably unauthoritative. Mitchell did not have subpoena power, and his witness list was entirely unrepresentative.(*) Even if every fact in it were corroborated, it isn't remotely a representative study of steroid use in major league baseball.
(*) As in the Mitchell Report's insistence that senior management warned of the problem in 1991 if not earlier: "Look, Fay Vincent put in in a memo!!!!"
(**) As noted, centered around New York and sourced through the fortuity of having people like McNamee in trouble with the feds.
The level of required proof for some writers seems about on this level.
Yes. And, of course, you don't need to follow baseball to determine if McNamee is a liar.
Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't. For Clemens and Bagwell, yes, it seems to be all that is required, that they be tarred with suspicion. For Sosa, when he is tarred, no, the standard is higher. Clemens denies and is vindicated in various forums? Doesn't mean #### when it comes to changing votes to yes. Pettite and Arod actually admit to using. Doesn't seem to make any difference when it comes to changing votes to no.
*Granted, the speech would probably be something on the order of f-u, but whatever.
This is exactly what it appears to me. It's revenge of the nerds, and the sports columnists can use "!teh roids!" as an excuse to "punish" in the only way they can players they never liked to begin with (Clemens, Bonds) while fabricating some excuse for why it doesn't apply to players they did like (Sosa, Pettitte.)
It's really pathetic and juvenile, when you get right down to it. That the Hall of Fame is associated with such petulant children is disappointing.
I assume you wouldn't vote for those who tested positive (Palmeiro, Manny), or those who admitted it (McGwire, A-Rod), right? But would you vote for Clemens? Bonds? Sheffield? Sosa?
I don't follow the steroids threads religiously, either, but that does not seem like a popular question here.
"Has x been proven to have..." - off the charts popular.
"Ok, just between us girls, what do we actually believe on this?" - not as much, from what I've noticed anyway.
He's no more or less credible than someone like Jose Canseco, whom the majority treats his word as gospel.
I'd be interested in knowing if that particular poster would vote for Ivan Rodriguez considering that in terms of "evidence" both players are in the same "boat".
Absolutely correct.
What burden of proof would you require? (I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious)
Either credible physical evidence or credible testimony from either a teammate or someone who witnessed the juicing first hand. I don't see either of those standards being met in Clemens' case, or in the cases of Sosa, Pudge, Bagwell, and others with similar non-clouds hanging over them. Obviously there are going to be cases where there's no clear answer, and in those cases I'd give the player the benefit of the doubt. I've never been a fan of the bacne or cap size theories of evidence.
What's particularly disgusting about the writers I've seen discounting the jury verdict is that they (rightly, AFAIC) see the Hall of Fame as the highest individual honor that a player can receive, and that they also (again, rightly) see steroid use as a disqualifier for that honor. So far so good.
BUT....It therefore seems that writers with those standards should be the FIRST ones to demand the highest standards of evidence before casting an otherwise deserving player aside. I don't see why this should even be an arguable point.
And yet we've seen one writer after another ignore not only the jury verdict itself, but worse, seem to ignore the entire collapse of the prosecution's case, from tainted evidence to shifting testimony. I'm still hoping that at some point there's going to be "wait a second...." moment, and that in the long run the pack mentality will pass, and tainted testimony and evidence can be separated from testimony that doesn't contradict itself and evidence that's a lot clearer than those syringes in a coke can. I can also only wish that these same writers would someday find themselves in a similar position where everyone immediately assumed that they were guilty of an offense no matter what the evidence led to. This has not been the BBWAA's finest hour.
I'll admit I started out not believing that McNamee would have any particular reason to concoct a phony story, but that initial thought has been overwhelmed by everything that came out during the trial. If I'd been paying closer attention to the details earlier, I would've switched sooner, but I've also said all along that I was waiting for the trial to get to the truth before making a final judgment.
And as a final note, I had to give at least some weight to Clemens' from-the-gitgo responses to all the charges against him. That in itself said nothing about his innocence, but it was certainly the type of reaction that most innocent men would be likeliest to give.
we're clum zee
Not sure if this was intended for me or Andy, but I'd vote for Pudge. And Clemens, Bonds, A-Rod, McGwire, Sosa, Bagwell, Piazza, Palmeiro, Manny, and Sheffield. Drug use isn't an automatic disqualifier for me, especially since there's no evidence against half these guys and with most the ones there is it happened before MLB started caring. If the league itself didn't care, I don't see any reason why the voters should.
#36 - Thanks! I wish more of the voters were that reasonable...
No, I don't think that follows at all. You have it exactly backwards. If steroids are such a scourge that you don't want to see users in the Hall, you should have a low standard of evidence, not a high one. As you say, the HOF is an honor, not a right.
And McNamee certainly meets a low standard. If one fervently believes that steroids users don't belong in the Hall, Clemens should be out. How could it logically be any other way?
No, I don't think that follows at all. You have it exactly backwards. If steroids are such a scourge that you don't want to see users in the Hall, you should have a low standard of evidence, not a high one. As you say, the HOF is an honor, not a right.
That makes absolutely no sense at all. You're essentially saying that someone who doesn't want steroid users to be honored in the HoF is obliged to cast a net so wide that practically anyone even suspected of using would be denied entry. Why would such a blatant lack of fair play be required in order to be against steroids? And if distinctions among suspects are so irrelevant, why have you spent so much time skillfully picking apart the prosecution's case against Clemens?
Your position (and pretty much the BTF consensus) is that it's wrong to bar any steroid users from the HoF. And there's nothing wrong with that POV if you sincerely believe it. But it's not as if that position and the position of clowns like Lupica are the only two allowable ones----although perhaps they are to you and your many mirror images on the yahoo side who've been howling against the jury. I frankly can't see anything in what you're saying beyond a rather primitive appeal to some sort of tribalism: You're either with us all the way or you're against us, no middle ground allowed.
And McNamee certainly meets a low standard. If one fervently believes that steroids users don't belong in the Hall, Clemens should be out. How could it logically be any other way?
It's only "logical" if you happen to believe McNamee's story, which thanks in part to your eloquent sifting through the evidence in this case, I don't. I'm not sure why that should disturb you, but then there are a lot of things about your ideas of "logic" I often fail to understand.
Yes.
You don't seem to get it: holding steroids use against players to begin with is the lack of fair play.
You've elevated your petty position -- that steroids were a blight against the game -- over honoring players who deserve the honor. So why whould making sure you are using a high standard of evidence to conclude guilt be elevated over your more important goal of seeing that users are kept out of the Hall?
Your logic here makes no sense.
"How much steroids benefitted him" is a question of opinion, not an issue of credibility.
I am not saying that Canseco is George Washington and the cherry tree. I am merely saying that it's laughable to compare his credibility with that of McNamee.
Within the world of competitive sports, this is an extremist position not terribly distinguishable from birtherism and trutherism. Essentially no one believes even the milder claim that allowing steroid use doesn't distort the competition, much less the absurd claim that noting the use of steroids by competitors is itself an abuse of fair play.
"Ok, just between us girls, what do we actually believe on this?" - not as much, from what I've noticed anyway."
"Again, I don't understand the use of the term "believe" here. Whether he used steroids is a factual question, not a matter of faith."
........
is "think" better?
"conclude"?
"speculate"?
a lot of you guys know these cases backwards and forward, on every alleged steroid user.
I don't know enough about any of them to come to an informed opinion. I always figured others here did. But I guess it is not to be.
Page 1 of 2 pages
1 2 >You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.