Or the other argument (the Ty Cobb/OJ Simpson argument) "If so and so is in, and he did this, then why should so and so be blocked?"

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?

It doesn't negate the argument. People say it all the time now. There are racist, murderers and other cheaters in the hof, why is this different? (Note I'm not asking you why this is different, this is the argument people give, it doesn't matter if the knowledge of their crimes happened before they went in or after they went in, the argument is that they are in and that it lowers the standards for the morality concept of the hof voting.)

People certainly do "say it all the time now", but the only thing that matters is how many people---or more pertinently, how many writers---are buying its spurious logic.

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. God knows that the heated yahoo rhetoric of many writers doesn't exactly advertise their judiciousness in assessing player morality, but at least they haven't (yet) descended to the level of that sort of muddleheaded sophistry.

Anyone who votes for juicers, given the HOF's published voting criteria, is not fulfilling the mandate of his position.

tricky dick,

that is exactly what biggio DID do - gary gaetti helped him redo his swing - got rid of the leg kick and pulled everything - had tons of doubles into the LF corner and 20+ 325-350' homers into the crawford boxes. of course, this proves he used steroids to do it.

spurious logic.

The logic is not spurious.

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.

Moreover, the general argument is that, although they violated no actual rules, the current candidates do not deserve the "honor" of being inducted. This is trotted out all the time, especially by you Andy, as to why this is not a "beyond all reasonable doubt" type of situation. We are simply choosing who to honor or not honor and the denial of an honor is not tantamount to a prison sentence. And that argument, such as it is, is fine.

But the argument that we continue to honor PED users, cheaters and racists* who have already been inducted because it's "too late" is specious on its face. It is a simple matter to remove their plaques and stop honoring them because of the ways they harmed the game. Yes, their original induction will always be a part of the historical record -- as would their later "banning" from the HoF when it was decided that the use of PEDs (and spitballs presumably) meant one was dishonorable.

Still, as you correctly note, nobody is actually calling for the removal of the scoundrels. For those of us who think PED use (at least pre-testing) shouldn't matter in HoF evaluations that is a perfectly consistent position. Bonds joining Aaron and Mays in the HoF is exactly what I think would honor the game. For those who think PED use is automatically disqualifying** because it violates the character clause***, this is not consistent. That past PED use**** causes no concern among this group of voters suggests that it is not the dishonor PED use brought to the game but something else which is driving them. At the very least, we should have lots of articles from voters saying that, if they had the chance to take their vote back, they would not have voted for the greenie users. In the last decade, I only recall one poster one time taking that position.

* Even if one makes the argument that only that which affected play on the field should be included under the character clause, surely this counts as bad sportsmanship (in the character clause) not to mention the effect on the playing field of guys like Anson working to keep blacks out.

** If Barry Bonds's on-field performance is insufficient to overcome the stain of steroid usage, then it's disqualifying. This despite the fact that we only have evidence of Bonds using for a handful of years without which he is still qualified for the HoF (not to mention his continuing excellent performance post-testing).

*** The character clause is only one criterion and I see no wording to suggest that it is determinitive (i.e. not only more important than the other criteria but a necessary condition). The HoF has made it clear that PED usage is not in itself disqualifying even in the presence of a test (Palmeiro is on the ballot) in contrast to Rose's disqualifying behavior. Even if one believes that roid use pre-testing violated the character clause, one still has to make the case that this outweighs the onfield accomplishments of the player. This would seem impossible to me with regard to Bonds and Clemens.

**** Please don't trot out your silly argument that greenies aren't PEDs in the same way roids are, it's baseless.

The man had more doubles than Yaz and Aaron.

...

He's a witch!

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.

Just because some of the horses have escaped, doesn't mean it isn't a good idea to close the barn door before the rest get loose. Similarly, current voters shouldn't feel hide bound by the unfortunate decisions of the past. No one is going to argue that we have to vote in Ray Durham or Jay Bell just because Bill Mazeroski got past the bouncers.

Chewbacca.

Chewbacca playing baseball isn't normal.

Walt,

Like Ray, all you're doing is preaching to your own little choir. At some point you're going to have to go beyond that if you actually want to change some outcomes, as opposed to merely venting your frustrations. I've never questioned either the logic or the legitimacy of your position, but that position based on premises I simply don't agree with.

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.

And you are being just like Ray right now, and having a total inability to understand or comprehend another persons viewpoint. My point wasn't that people all over the place are doing this or that. My point was that there are three reasonable positions people who dislike steroids could have when voting for people in the hof. Going with the viewpoint that since we'll never know who took, and that it's unfair to keep someone out of the hall while others who didn't get caught but may have done it, might get in, that it's fair to just not worry about it.

Again, this isn't my viewpoint, I'm just pointing out that it's not a Bizarro viewpoint. My viewpoint is basically cheating is an on field action, it's the league's responsibility to punish and catch cheaters how they see fit.

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.

I guess we have decided that this is a troll, since no one has responded to any of his comments?

And you are being just like Ray right now, and having a total inability to understand or comprehend another persons viewpoint. My point wasn't that people all over the place are doing this or that. My point was that there are three reasonable positions people who dislike steroids could have when voting for people in the hof. Going with the viewpoint that since we'll never know who took, and that it's unfair to keep someone out of the hall while others who didn't get caught but may have done it, might get in, that it's fair to just not worry about it.

Again, this isn't my viewpoint, I'm just pointing out that it's not a Bizarro viewpoint.

But if you'll look back at what I wrote in #46, I specifically said I had no problem with that position, even though I obviously disagree with its conclusion.

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.

To me there are three, and only three positions that try to combine judgment with fairness on the question of steroids and the Hall of Fame. I have NEVER denied the legitimacy of any of these three positions, even though I only go with the third one myself.

1. Let statistics alone determine who gets in, since steroids are just the latest version of PEDs or "cheating", and prior types of PED use and other forms of cheating have long been considered part of the game. The position you just described comes from a different direction, but the end result (don't bar anyone) is identical.

2. Keep post-testing era violaters out, but don't apply any retroactive penalties even to known pre-testing juicers.

3. Keep out known juicers from any era, but apply strict standards of evidence to determine who is really "known". You don't transmit the "sins" of Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds onto Jeff Bagwell, Sammy Sosa or Mike Piazza, merely because of inference, rumor, suspicion, or unverified random charges by people who won't repeat those charges under oath. Better to let in a player who later turns out to have been a juicer than to keep voting against players on the grounds of mere suspicion, because the former mistake is one made in good faith, and the subsequent dishonor falls squarely upon the tainted player, not the anti-steroids writers who were duped.

My viewpoint is basically cheating is an on field action, it's the league's responsibility to punish and catch cheaters how they see fit.

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?

what room do you leave, if any, for individual discretion when it comes to interpreting the character clause?

"The last refuge of a scoundrel" rings a bell.

what room do you leave, if any, for individual discretion when it comes to interpreting the character clause?

"The last refuge of a scoundrel" rings a bell.

Yeah, let's just transport the Hall of Statistical Magnificence to Cooperstown and leave the voting to BB-Reference programmed robots. The only downside would be that Repoz's commissions would sink as fast as Mark McGwire's reputation.

Thinking back over all of the HoF votes of the 20th century, I'm blanking on candidacies where the margin of the result was swayed by an abundance of integrity and character, or lack of same. Maybe you could find one?

The retro-essentiality of the character clause says very little about maintaining the Hall's traditional standards, but quite a lot more about the writers' CYA cleanup of their own reputations.

Andy, I don't see how you can both believe this:

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.

and then still defer to the same writers who constantly practice that.

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?

The league applies the punishment, that is the end of the story. I will not offer partial season credit for any missed time because of suspension(versus say war credit or strike credit or even held back because of various reasons credit). But that is the extent of the way I look at it. Or if the player quits on his team or creates an environment that hurts the unity of the team. (Players off of the type of my head that I think should be subjected to a character clause in the voting were/are Dick Allen, Kirby Puckett, Billy Martin, Bert Blyleven, Gary Sheffield, Albert Belle, and probably a few others, but it should only be looked as one factor, and shouldn't be the only factor in keeping them out. I don't think that any character flaw outside of murder/violent rape should be able to keep Bonds/Clemens out, but say a guy Larry Walker had Bonds personality/character, then I could see that being enough for me to keep him on the other side of the line)



What room do I leave for the character clause? Basically the character clause to me is about the actual personality and actions of the person off of the field. Say your name is Bobby Cox(Note...not the real Bobby Cox, of course), and you enjoy beating your wife, that is a character flaw and should be considered in the scheme of things. Maybe it's enough to keep a person out or not, but that is how I interpret the character flaw. I think that as far as cheating goes, that is an on field ruling, which means it's strictly subjected to the rules of the league and is factored into the penalty phase that they have assigned already.

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.

Absolutely agree with this part.

Andy, I don't see how you can both believe this:

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.

and then still defer to the same writers who constantly practice that.

I defer to the collective judgment of the BBWAA, in the same manner that I defer to the decisions of the Supreme Court and of the American electorate. Needless to say, there are often times I don't agree with the decisions of any of those institutions, but like Churchill's view of democracy, it's the least worst way I can think of to settle the question of HoF membership.

And in the case of specific writers, I've both agreed and disagreed with them in many cases. I've also repeatedly argued against the reasoning and opinions of many writers who've been (or who vote) on "my side" of the steroid issue.

All I can say is that I call em as I see em. I'm sure that a similar sort of conflict arises among those who are against steroids but don't believe that steroids should be an automatic HoF disqualifier, when they read columnists on "their side" of the voting who talk about steroids as if they were no big deal and should be allowed. The idea that every nuance of steroids opinions has to march in lockstep with how one would vote on Barry Bonds or Mark McGwire has always seemed way too reductionist for my taste.

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?

The league applies the punishment, that is the end of the story. I will not offer partial season credit for any missed time because of suspension(versus say war credit or strike credit or even held back because of various reasons credit). But that is the extent of the way I look at it. Or if the player quits on his team or creates an environment that hurts the unity of the team. (Players off of the type of my head that I think should be subjected to a character clause in the voting were/are Dick Allen, Kirby Puckett, Billy Martin, Bert Blyleven, Gary Sheffield, Albert Belle, and probably a few others, but it should only be looked as one factor, and shouldn't be the only factor in keeping them out. I don't think that any character flaw outside of murder/violent rape should be able to keep Bonds/Clemens out, but say a guy Larry Walker had Bonds personality/character, then I could see that being enough for me to keep him on the other side of the line)

What room do I leave for the character clause? Basically the character clause to me is about the actual personality and actions of the person off of the field. Say your name is Bobby Cox(Note...not the real Bobby Cox, of course), and you enjoy beating your wife, that is a character flaw and should be considered in the scheme of things. Maybe it's enough to keep a person out or not, but that is how I interpret the character flaw. I think that as far as cheating goes, that is an on field ruling, which means it's strictly subjected to the rules of the league and is factored into the penalty phase that they have assigned already.

Obviously we have some (though not all) radically different ideas about how and when the character clause should be invoked and not invoked, but since it's purely a matter of personal preference, I can't see getting down on the mat about it. You certainly express your particular POV very well.

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.

There's precious little "real evidence" out there that has been subjected to even basic truth seeking procedures such as being under oath and subject to cross-examination. Oh well, I'm sure there were folks back in Salem who suggested that witches should only be burned based on "real evidence", but once you start down the road without even defining what the burden of proof is, you really shouldn't be surprised when the mob overreaches.

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.

There's precious little "real evidence" out there that has been subjected to even basic truth seeking procedures such as being under oath and subject to cross-examination. Oh well, I'm sure there were folks back in Salem who suggested that witches should only be burned based on "real evidence", but once you start down the road without even defining what the burden of proof is, you really shouldn't be surprised when the mob overreaches.

I agree with what you're getting at, but if you look at my HoF ballot in the HoM / HoF thread (post #50), you'll see that your argument should be directed elsewhere. I've spoken out against using low standards of evidence as much as anyone here.

It's all well and good to peel off from the lynch mob just before they bring out the rope. That doesn't excuse anyone from helping to whip them up into a frenzy beforehand.

Not that I'm referring to anyone in particular, mind you.

when we look at this stretch of Hall of Fame debating, "first-rate intelligence" isn't the first literary quote that applies

As opposed to the Golden Era of Rational Discourse that took place . . . when, exactly?

I'm blanking on candidacies where the margin of the result was swayed by an abundance of integrity and character, or lack of same.

Certain: Hal Chase
Probable: Rabbit Maranville (in)
Possible: Bill Dahlen, Sherry Magee, Carl Mays, Dick Allen

Jackson (and Cicotte) are arguably special cases

I guess we have decided that this is a troll

And an incompetently obvious one at that. But efficient -- he made "Ignore" in only one post.