U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Baseball
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-10-2013, 08:29 PM
 
Location: The 719
14,555 posts, read 22,418,417 times
Reputation: 13855

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
Well, barring "the taint", Bonds and Clemens come to mind...
... and with Sosa to boot, justice is served.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-10-2013, 09:02 PM
 
51,928 posts, read 41,798,494 times
Reputation: 32398
Any talk of career "numbers" is really out the window in the roid era. That's kinda the whole problem now isn't it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2013, 10:29 PM
 
Location: Albuquerque, NM
13,293 posts, read 12,795,417 times
Reputation: 6636
8 voters voted for Clemens but not Bonds.

Not sure of that justification.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2013, 02:25 AM
 
Location: Springfield, Ohio
12,201 posts, read 10,418,037 times
Reputation: 11214
Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok View Post
8 voters voted for Clemens but not Bonds.

Not sure of that justification.
I have an idea...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2013, 07:39 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
40,950 posts, read 18,569,815 times
Reputation: 18673
Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok View Post
8 voters voted for Clemens but not Bonds.

Not sure of that justification.
In the past couple of months leading up to this year's vote, pretty much every sports writer with a vote has written a column or delivered an on the air editorial expressing their thinking on the HoF voting for the roids age players. Collectively it has struck me as journalists engaging in mental exercises to come up with some new angle, new twist...anything which would distinguish their opinion from everyone else. The consequence is that these offerings seem to lack real conviction behind them. I don't think that anyone has a really solid foundation for their positions, it has been more of a matter of..."I have to take some position, lets see...." The reality is that no one knows what to do, no one knows the correct way to handle this....and there probably isn't any satisfactory "correct way."

Thus every possible rationalization for voting them in or keeping them out, or keeping them out now and voting them in later, has been paraded before the public.

The phenomena you reference above could be rationalized as...."Bonds was convicted in court of obstruction of justice related to steroid use, Clemens was not convicted of anything, merely suspected. Therefore Clemens gets a pass on the PEDs while Bonds does not." And that is their idea of that new angle, that different take, advanced and defended not because anyone believes it is true or relevant, but because it is something around which one may wrap some rationalizations and have an official opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2013, 07:52 AM
 
Location: Long Island,New York
8,163 posts, read 13,184,824 times
Reputation: 2488
The problem is that certain guys are being penalized for being grouped with the Steroid Era gang. Then you get a guy like Bonds who was a great player before the obvious changes in his physique. So how can the voters give a proper vote? Its very tough. I can understand that they didn't want any of them making it on their first ballot but after that, what do you do? A guy hitting over 700 HR's should be in. A guy as dominant as the Rocket too. I can understand if these guys were borderline but they dominated. I understand that they don't want cheaters in but if you analyze a lot of the guys currently in, i'm sure most would probably be out if we scrutinized them in the same way and knew their lives inside and out. Fergie Jenkins was into drugs big time. Should he have been excluded? Babe Ruth and alcohol, did it help his performance? Obviously there is no way of knowing but they really have to analyze a lot more factors and truthfully if a guy didn't test positive, how can we still group him with the positive testers? I know we have our own opinions but if in a court of law if we are innocent until proven guilty, shouldn't it work the same here? If a guy did use, maybe we need to determine the stats he was averaging and figure out our opinion of what we though his stats would be. Maybe Bonds only would have hit 550 HR's; but last I looked, that would still be hall-worthy. Definitely not an easy one for those who have to make these decisions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2013, 08:06 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
40,950 posts, read 18,569,815 times
Reputation: 18673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lancet71 View Post
Obviously there is no way of knowing but they really have to analyze a lot more factors and truthfully if a guy didn't test positive, how can we still group him with the positive testers? I know we have our own opinions but if in a court of law if we are innocent until proven guilty, shouldn't it work the same here? .
I would say no, it should not work like a court of law. Our system of justice was designed to include numerous checks and balances which make it difficult to get a conviction. It was made this way deliberately with the idea of not wanting a system where it would be easy to jail someone who was not guilty. In that what is at stake is an individual's freedom or incarceration, the thinking behind this is justified.

With the HoF we are not talking about anything so consequential, it is a matter of someone being awarded an occupation related honor, or not be awarded that honor. Here if there is a system failure and an injustice results, the consequence is...someone didn't get an honor that he probably should have received.

Further, in the particular case before us, these are not honors bestowed or withheld for great public service, they are honors for excellence in a public entertainment venue.

So, no, we certainly have no need to emulate the dynamic of our criminal justice system in deciding whether or not someone rates a private, occupational related award.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2013, 09:21 AM
 
Location: Albuquerque, NM
13,293 posts, read 12,795,417 times
Reputation: 6636
Since there is no right or wrong answer and since many of the sports writers who are now finding themselves on the horn of the dilemma that they were blissfully unaware of at the time though they are supposed to be the utmost authority on the contributions of baseball players to the sport of baseball, to me, it makes sense to elect players without giving thought to whether they used or not.

Yes, Barry put up astronomical numbers which were likely assisted chemically, but he did it against players that were also assisted chemically.

We don't know who used, we don't know who didn't use, we have no valid comparison.

We acknowledge that steroids were/are a part of the game and move on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2013, 11:17 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
40,950 posts, read 18,569,815 times
Reputation: 18673
Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok View Post
Since there is no right or wrong answer and since many of the sports writers who are now finding themselves on the horn of the dilemma that they were blissfully unaware of at the time though they are supposed to be the utmost authority on the contributions of baseball players to the sport of baseball, to me, it makes sense to elect players without giving thought to whether they used or not.

Yes, Barry put up astronomical numbers which were likely assisted chemically, but he did it against players that were also assisted chemically.

We don't know who used, we don't know who didn't use, we have no valid comparison.

We acknowledge that steroids were/are a part of the game and move on.
There must be an argument against your proposed solution....lets see....I have it here somewhere...oh, okay, here it is, Rationalization # 755.....Yes, the steroid fueled players put up their numbers competing against other artificially enhanced players but...1) Some were artificially enhanced, but not all. and 2) For purposes of the HoF voting, these players are in a sense competing against everyone else in the Hall, most of whom were not roid aided.

I think the counter to that is rationalization # 762 on the list.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2013, 12:56 PM
 
51,928 posts, read 41,798,494 times
Reputation: 32398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natural510 View Post
I have an idea...
Me too. Bonds was a jerk.

However, he wasn't boning underaged aspiring country stars in his hotel room either.

If you are hinting at a racial motive, the hall is full of blacks voted in by the very same writers.

I suspect that Clemens will be treated softer by the roids taint due to his position as a pitcher being viewed as less impacted by roid use than a hitters.

Oh well, the "porcelain age" of baseball continues onward in all it's flushing glory.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Baseball
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top