Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, December 17, 2011

Botte: Most voters say ‘no’ to Cooperstown for Barry Bonds

If you can save just one voter, it’s worth it!

Barry Bonds may have received a light sentence Friday for his role in the BALCO scandal. But avoiding prison time doesn’t mean that baseball’s all-time home run king should expect Hall of Fame voters to go any easier on him when he lands on the ballot next December.

“Nothing has changed. I’m a ‘no,’ and I’ve always been a ‘no,’ ” said longtime Daily News columnist Bill Madden, who is a Hall of Fame Spink Award winner, the highest award given by the Baseball Writers Association of America. “Whether Bonds was going to get jail time or not makes no difference to me. Everybody knows what he was and what he did.”

Twelve of 21 eligible Hall voters who responded to the Daily News on Friday – including veteran News columnist John Harper — indicated they do not plan to vote for Bonds next year for enshrinement in Cooperstown.

“I would not vote for him because of his undisputed ties to BALCO and the use of performance-enhancing drugs,” said Peter Abraham of the Boston Globe. “In the case of Bonds, it’s pretty easy. He was convicted of obstructing justice and was fortunate to escape other charges. I wouldn’t vote for somebody who cheated to that degree.”

Tim Brown, a veteran columnist for Yahoo! Sports, added that Bonds’ sentencing Friday had nothing to do with his “no” stance. “I will not vote for Bonds, because I believe he cheated,” Brown said.

Repoz Posted: December 17, 2011 at 04:26 AM | 211 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hall of fame, history, rumors, steroids

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 3 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3
   201. SoSH U at work Posted: December 19, 2011 at 08:44 PM (#4019528)
True, Holtzman knew many of the voters, so perhaps more informed than random speculation by a BBTF poster about what the voters would have done. But there's no evidence he actually talked to any significant number before writing that, let alone a representative selection.


That goes on all the time. A great many writers offered that Rose would have gotten in if he just confessed and apologized, though that ignored the number of writers who a) wouldn't have voted for him under any circumstances, b) believed his denials about betting on baseball, and c) were giving him the benefit of the doubt. The former group wasn't budging and the latter groups may well have flipped on Pete if he fessed up.

Those writers may have been speaking for themselves (though Mac's stagnant vote totals suggest not holding them to the promise) and their vote, but it was a mistake (or hubris) to think the entire electorate held the same viewpoint.
   202. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: December 19, 2011 at 08:45 PM (#4019533)
Do you have even the slightest evidence for that? You come on here and regularly call me a liar and other juvenile insults, yet you shovel that #### at people? That's the best you got ... your pulled out of your ass ########?

You have absolutely no ####### clue how many people read Dowd's report. None.
Yeah, I do: it wasn't available to the general public until Sean Lahman posted it on his website, several years after the events. (You can tell it was several years after the events because there were no websites in 1989.)
   203. . Posted: December 19, 2011 at 08:57 PM (#4019539)
And as both David and I have pointed out, that one-person "prediction" was both fudged with qualifications ("probably" and "some day"), and backed up by nothing but Holtzman's solitary opinion. Whatever other opinions he'd solicited weren't cited by him in that column. There is absolutely zero evidence that either you or Ray has produced that would indicate that anywhere remotely near 75% of the writers would have voted for Rose at any point after the release of the Dowd Report.

The story's 20 years old and no one's going to do a survey of every reporter that was around then.

Look, you tried to make a blanket claim that Rose has always been deemed unworthy of the Hall of Fame because of betting on the Reds thinking you wouldn't get called on it. And you got called on it. You know Holtzman is a centrist guy and you know Dave Anderson's a mainstream guy and they both -- Anderson directly, Holtzman indirectly, notwithstanding your nitpicks -- completely contradicted that theory. You also know, or should know, that they spoke what others in their circles were saying or thinking, as that's what writers and columnists of their type do.(**) In the face of that, you've resorted to Mitt Romneyish, "I'll bet yous" and the like which have nothing supporting them.

(**) Even though, yes, sigh, they're really only two people.
   204. . Posted: December 19, 2011 at 09:04 PM (#4019546)
Yeah, I do: it wasn't available to the general public until Sean Lahman posted it on his website, several years after the events. (You can tell it was several years after the events because there were no websites in 1989.)

It was publicly released and reported on even before Rose settled with Giamatti. I'm not sure what the Internet has to do with that or, really, what the concept of the "general public" has to do with that. We aren't talking about the general public. (And paper-shuffling professions such as big-city law and big-city newspapering were able to function pre-Net.)
   205. . Posted: December 19, 2011 at 10:13 PM (#4019601)
SI, the week after the Rose/Giamatti settlement, main story:

In the six months since the commissioner's office began its investigation into Rose's gambling activities, many fans have asked, "What's so bad about betting on your own team?" Or its companion question, "What's so bad about it if he didn't try to fix games?"

There was no confusion over what Rose did and what he was alleged to have done.

SI also had the Dowd Report:

His cocksure denials that he had wagered on his sport were scant defense against the 225-page report prepared by baseball's special counsel John Dowd. That report named nine people who implicated Rose in baseball betting.

... and reported Giamatti's immediate post-settlement remarks:

Giamatti took pains to point out that Rose had not been guaranteed reinstatement at any point in the future. When asked what Rose would have to do to prove himself worthy of reinstatement, Giamatti said he expected Rose to "show a redirected, reconfigured or rehabilitated life."

In other words, Bart Giamatti did not believe the charges and Rose's acts themselves warranted permanent expulsion from either baseball or, its consumed subset, the Hall of Fame (though failing to adequately "redirect, reconfigure, or rehabilitate" did.) I think we can fairly assume that Bart Giamatti read the Dowd Report. No, I haven't asked him.

On Aug. 18, Katz called deputy baseball commissioner Fay Vincent and expressed a renewed interest in settling. The two sides traded phone calls for several days, and as a final gesture of good faith, Giamatti called Katz to assure him that he would consider with an open mind any reinstatement application from Rose. Moments later Rose signed.

And it's fair to say baseball has not "considered with an open mind" any such reinstatement application.
   206. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 19, 2011 at 11:37 PM (#4019648)
Look, you tried to make a blanket claim that Rose has always been deemed unworthy of the Hall of Fame because of betting on the Reds thinking you wouldn't get called on it. And you got called on it.

I've never made any "blanket claim" that everyone agreed with Rose's unworthiness. I've said only that the idea that anything approaching 75% of the BBWAA would have voted for Rose in light of the Dowd Report is one of the more comical assertions I've ever seen on BTF, and that's saying a lot. To counter that mockery, you've cited exactly two writers, with no substantiation for any others---not that I'm saying that those are the only two (emphasis added as a distortion preventer), but there's a big gap between one HoF voter** and 75% of his colleagues.

You know Holtzman is a centrist guy and you know Dave Anderson's a mainstream guy and they both -- Anderson directly, Holtzman indirectly, notwithstanding your nitpicks -- completely contradicted that theory.

Mr. Froggy, no matter how hard you try to inflate the opinion of two writers into a chestful of other voters, it's still just a chestful of hot air. All you're going on is a lot of opinionated extrapolation, with no actual data points beyond Holtzman and Anderson to back it up.

You also know, or should know, that they spoke what others in their circles were saying or thinking, as that's what writers and columnists of their type do.**

Yes, I'm sure that Holtzman called all kinds of other writers before writing that Take It To The Bank "probably...some day" column. Let's just take your word on this, because this is what all writers do before writing an opinion column 3 or 4 days a week.

(**) Even though, yes, sigh, they're really only two people.

And only one of them (Holtzman) actually ever voted in any HoF election, since it's the policy of the Times to disenfranchise their employees from any awards or honors voting.
   207. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: December 20, 2011 at 03:13 AM (#4019816)
And only one of them (Holtzman) actually ever voted in any HoF election, since it's the policy of the Times to disenfranchise their employees from any awards or honors voting.
Right, and the one who did have a ballot didn't actually state that he himself would vote for Rose.
   208. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: December 20, 2011 at 03:21 AM (#4019824)
There was no confusion over what Rose did and what he was alleged to have done.
There was plenty of confusion over both what he did and what he was alleged to do, as evidenced by the fact that people still claim he didn't bet as a player.

In other words, Bart Giamatti did not believe the charges and Rose's acts themselves warranted permanent expulsion from either baseball or, its consumed subset, the Hall of Fame (though failing to adequately "redirect, reconfigure, or rehabilitate" did.) I think we can fairly assume that Bart Giamatti read the Dowd Report. No, I haven't asked him.
Those are, indeed, "other words," because that's not what he said. "This murderer will never get parole without showing remorse" does not mean the same thing as "If he shows remorse, he's entitled to parole."

On Aug. 18, Katz called deputy baseball commissioner Fay Vincent and expressed a renewed interest in settling. The two sides traded phone calls for several days, and as a final gesture of good faith, Giamatti called Katz to assure him that he would consider with an open mind any reinstatement application from Rose. Moments later Rose signed.

And it's fair to say baseball has not "considered with an open mind" any such reinstatement application.
It's not, in fact, fair to say that. It is fair to say that the only person who could have described this call would have been Reuven Katz himself, and Katz had an incentive to minimize his own incompetence by pretending that there were unwritten promises in the agreement despite an integration clause.
   209. AJMcCringleberry Posted: December 20, 2011 at 03:50 AM (#4019860)
And it's fair to say baseball has not "considered with an open mind" any such reinstatement application.

Just because they haven't granted reinstatement doesn't mean they didn't consider it.
   210. . Posted: December 20, 2011 at 01:54 PM (#4020003)
I've said only that the idea that anything approaching 75% of the BBWAA would have voted for Rose in light of the Dowd Report is one of the more comical assertions I've ever seen on BTF, and that's saying a lot.

I think you can put a pleasant entry in your daily calorie counter, because that's quite a strenuous battle you must have had.

Take another look in the mirror, though -- looks like there's one last piece of straw caught in your teeth.

Those are, indeed, "other words," because that's not what he said. "This murderer will never get parole without showing remorse" does not mean the same thing as "If he shows remorse, he's entitled to parole."

Hey, look ... David can distinguish two things!!!!
   211. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: December 20, 2011 at 06:41 PM (#4020286)
Hey, look ... David can distinguish two things!!!!
Yes. Like the World Trade Center and a Burlington Coat Factory, or Jack Morris and a clutch pitcher. Try it sometime.
Page 3 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
The Ghost of Sox Fans Past
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 2018 2018 Nov 5 - The Trump dilemma hits the Boston Red Sox amid a wave of White House boycotts in sports
(2333 - 11:36pm, Nov 12)
Last: Ray (CTL)

Hall of MeritMock 2018 Today’s Game Hall of Fame Ballot
(29 - 11:21pm, Nov 12)
Last: Dr. Chaleeko

NewsblogNo MLB rule changes likely until eve of spring training
(28 - 11:16pm, Nov 12)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(2134 - 10:57pm, Nov 12)
Last: . . . . . .

NewsblogJoe Mauer Retires After 15 Seasons
(58 - 10:40pm, Nov 12)
Last: Sweatpants

NewsblogOT - November* 2018 College Football thread
(164 - 10:27pm, Nov 12)
Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (November 2018)
(106 - 9:32pm, Nov 12)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogRed Sox: Bill James “is not an employee nor does he speak for the club”
(180 - 8:47pm, Nov 12)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogDodgers release Utley to facilitate retirement
(42 - 8:27pm, Nov 12)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogReport: Nationals Ownership Rejected Bryce Harper Trade to Astros
(21 - 8:06pm, Nov 12)
Last: Adam Starblind

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (2018-19 season begins!)
(1189 - 7:26pm, Nov 12)
Last: Mefisto

NewsblogIt's not just the worst teams not spending money in baseball free agency — it's the richest, too
(41 - 7:02pm, Nov 12)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogOT Gaming: October 2015
(914 - 3:18pm, Nov 12)
Last: Zonk is Just the Right Amount of Wrought

NewsblogMLB owners expected to unanimously approve extension for Rob Manfred next week, report says
(14 - 2:44pm, Nov 12)
Last: shoewizard

Gonfalon CubsNow what?
(216 - 2:28pm, Nov 12)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

Page rendered in 0.2869 seconds
46 querie(s) executed