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.
Well, I guess if you say that Hillary killed Vince Foster, you might as well say that Obama was born in Kenya while you're at it. In for a dime, in for a shelter full of bottled water.
I think a similar argument would be that Hilary was first lady and killed Vince Foster therefore Laura Bush must have killed someone too.
pearlman has a problem with athletes because he wanted them to treat him as something special instead of a nuisance.
Using those standards you have to eliminate everyone who played in the 90's pretty much.
Which I suspect is the idea.
It is silly isn't it? If someone confesses (Canseco), has some evidence (Palmeiro failing test) or someone who should know speaks out (the Clemens case) or there is something 'weird' (backne) I can see why someone would withhold their vote. Don't agree in all cases, but at least there is some logic. But Bagwell & Biggio are so odd to be doing it with - no accusations while they played, no failed tests, no accusations post-playing except by sportswriters saying 'seemed too muscular' or 'played with guys who did them'. Using those standards you have to eliminate everyone who played in the 90's pretty much.
That assumes that Hillary did kill Vince Foster, and that Bagwell was juicing. And if you're going to start out with those two baseless assumptions, then hell, why not go whole hog and make a complete jackass of yourself?
Hillary ... Vince Foster ... Laura B ... forged birth certificate
Right, but then there's also the equally dubious argument which says "since we'll never know for sure who juiced, let's just forget about it, even in cases where there is actual proof or overwhelming evidence." It's a Bizarro World form of guilt (or innocence) by association, and it comes packed with every bit as much of an agenda as the one that John referred to in # 13.
'you bet I did PED's...any I could get my hands on...see, you cannot tell by body type'.
Perish the thought of trying to think through individual cases and come up with a rational opinion that's based on the preponderance of real evidence.
Or maybe we could just label a player as a juicer only when there's some credible concrete evidence that he really juiced, like failing a test or having physical evidence or credible witnesses who will testify (and be willing to be cross-examined) that he did.
Pudge looked like a human ninja turtle.
Well, unless you've decided to ignore juicing altogether (which is perfectly defensible), then obviously your option 1 provides the best balance of fairness and rational judgment. Option 2 is a copout, and option 3 is the equivalent of a #### strike. The worth of option 4 depends on what criteria you're using, which you don't spell out.
Because Cooperstown's character clause almost exclusively relates to the game on the field, and because O.J. Simpson was elected to the PFBHoF nine years before he murdered his wife. Lack of a character clause or not, do you really think that O.J. could have been inducted into Canton in 1995, rather than in 1985?
By the way, I'm not convinced Bagwell's being held out for steroids. Obviously there are some who aren't voting for him for that reason but I'm not sure it's a high enough percentage to keep him out. As somebody pointed out here a few years ago, Bagwell is the type of candidate the voters almost always "underrate" on the first few ballots for whatever silly reason. Yes, by our standards, he's a no-brainer, first ballot guy. But he has no milestones, 1 short-season MVP, and was a good all-around player. He has fewer hits, HR and RBI than Fred McGriff. He's the Sandberg-Larkin of 1B and, so far, he's on a pretty similar HoF path:...
She and a girlfriend were hurrying to a drive-in cinema when, driving her father's car, she ran through a stop sign on a dark country road and hit a car being driven by Mike Douglas, also 17, a star sportsman and popular student at her school. Nobody was ever charged and there was no evidence that either driver had been drinking.
In the forthcoming memoir, Spoken from the Heart, Mrs Bush admitted she and her friend were chatting at the time but also blamed various other factors, including the darkness of the road, the small size of the stop sign and even the handling of the victim's model of car.
The point of the character clause is to protect the "integrity" of the HoF. If the HoF currently houses so many scoundrels then there is no integrity to protect. Horses, barn doors, all that.
And so far the plain answer is: Not very many, at least outside the rarefied "Stats Are All That Matters" air of forums like this.
52. J.R. Wolf Posted: December 11, 2012 at 01:23 AM (#4321530)
Anyone who votes for juicers, given the HOF's published voting criteria, is not fulfilling the mandate of his position.
a position that is voiced by more than a few writers and others, which is that of guilt by association; guilt by statistical inference alone, even in the complete absence of any actual evidence of steroid use; and / or guilt by body type. To me these positions are completely unfair to candidates against whom no real evidence has ever been offered, but who are the victims of rumor, gossip and Chass-like inferences.
So how do you then come down on HoF candidates whom the league caught in positive tests, as opposed to the pre-testing era juicers? Are the writers allowed to take this type of "cheating" into special consideration, or must they ignore it the way they ignored the league-imposed suspension of Gaylord Perry? IOW what room do you leave, if any, for individual discretion when it comes to interpreting the character clause?
To reiterate, there are only two positions I find morally unacceptable. The worst by far is "They all juiced, and so let's not vote for anyone from that era." That's admittedly a bit of a strawman, since few people actually will put it so crudely, but it's really not that far removed from a position that is voiced by more than a few writers and others, which is that of guilt by association; guilt by statistical inference alone, even in the complete absence of any actual evidence of steroid use; and / or guilt by body type. To me these positions are completely unfair to candidates against whom no real evidence has ever been offered, but who are the victims of rumor, gossip and Chass-like inferences.
when we look at this stretch of Hall of Fame debating, "first-rate intelligence" isn't the first literary quote that applies
I'm blanking on candidacies where the margin of the result was swayed by an abundance of integrity and character, or lack of same.
I guess we have decided that this is a troll
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (1 members)
Page rendered in 0.9594 seconds, 74 querie(s) executed