HOF Ballot Announced: Liars, Cheaters, and Scumbags Included

[SephClone89]

Originally Posted by TommyJohn

Not bloody likely. For years, Rick “I’ll only vote for guys who played the game cleanly” Telander has campaigned against him, insisting that a DH like Thomas has no place in the hallowed Mecca in Cooperstown. This is, of course, the same Rick Telander that then turns around and casts a vote for scumbag, rotten, awful blaspheming DH Edgar Martinez because he played the game cleanly. This is the kind of mentality that Thomas will be up against.

Are you attempting to characterize Telander here? Because it's not clear.

[Tragg]

Originally Posted by RKMeibalane

2013 HOF Ballot Released

It would be nice for baseball to reward players (Bagwell, Biggio, Piazza) who played the game the right way by enshrining them, as their numbers are good enough.

The reason Bagwell isn't in is because of suspicions of exactly that. Biggio should get it 1st or 2nd ballot.

[TommyJohn]

Originally Posted by SephClone89

Are you attempting to characterize Telander here? Because it's not clear.

Um, no.

[SephClone89]

Originally Posted by TommyJohn

Um, no.

Okay, then do you care to elaborate on your dislike of Edgar Martinez?

[TDog]

Originally Posted by Bob Roarman

See, now you're starting to get the hang of things. ...
How far you wish to pursue it is completely up to the player, no one forces him to take PEDs. Just like no one forces him to go on a special diet or lift weights or train at high altitude. These are all choices. But no matter what, you are at the very least putting at risk the quality of your later life (and at present in tons of cases) if you have a career of being a professional athlete. That is unavoidable. Baseball, football, hockey, basketball, some more than others, but it's all a risk that comes with the job. And it's completely up to the players to make that choice if it's worth it to them or not. Even without PEDs, that's just the way it is, there's no enforcing that out of pro sports. It's a year round deal for most of these guys now.

You are missling the point. Of course the Hall of Fame is about image, what baseball wants to celebrate about the game. That is why players who violate federal law to gain competitive edge, putting other players in a position where they may have to consider doing so themselves. Working hard and living healthy isn't simply a parallel choice. There are fringe players who use performance-enhancing drugs in an effort to play major league baseball. Performance-enhancing drug use started in the Olympics years ago, and in an effort to keep the games clean, the Olympics have addressed the situation.

There is a difference between letting records stand and celebrating dirty players. Barry Bonds is the all-time home run king, for a season and for a career. The fact that people don't respect his achievements or even Bonds as a human being because of the way he achieved the records is why I would never vote for him to be in the Hall of Fame if I had a ballot. Last season, a suspended player even took himself out of the running for the NL batting title, setting a precedent for records achieved by dirty players not counting, although that was an isolated case that came from a player trying to rehabilitate his image to keep working in baseball rather than a mandate from the commissioner.

Fans care about performance-enhancing drugs affecting baseball. Choosing to violate federal law and deprive yourself of years of quality life is not an option that should be celebrated in the Hall of Fame.

[russ99]

I still think there should be a lesser wing in the HOF, and put Rose and all the steroid guys in there, so they can be recognized for their accomplishments, just not at the same level as the rest of the hall.

[russ99]

Originally Posted by Tragg

The reason Bagwell isn't in is because of suspicions of exactly that. Biggio should get it 1st or 2nd ballot.

Bagwell got 321 votes last year on his second ballot, and that's 56%. Exit polls for this year's voting give him 68%, still shy of 75% for now. IMO, the usual BBWA east coast bias is keeping him out more than the juicing speculation at this point, which could also cost Biggio on his first ballot.

The voters obviously aren't boycotting him like some of proven juicers, like McGuire who's gotten no more than 23%. Clemens and Bonds are exit polling under 50% by comparison.

[chicagowhitesox1]

Originally Posted by SephClone89

Not positive. Look how long it's taking Bagwell, for instance.

The reason I feel Thomas will be a first ballot is because he was campaigning against steroids since the 90's. There are no links at all that Frank Thomas was using steroids.

Bagwell more than likely used even though he denies. But everyone though the same about Palmeiro for awhile too.

[Tragg]

Originally Posted by russ99

Bagwell got 321 votes last year on his second ballot, and that's 56%. Exit polls for this year's voting give him 68%, still shy of 75% for now. IMO, the usual BBWA east coast bias is keeping him out more than the juicing speculation at this point, which could also cost Biggio on his first ballot.

The voters obviously aren't boycotting him like some of proven juicers, like McGuire who's gotten no more than 23%. Clemens and Bonds are exit polling under 50% by comparison.

He isn't a renown juicer; it's more latent, but the belief is there. He should obviously be in otherwise. One disadvantage BAgwell had, if he's clean, is that he never got the public scrutiny to show he was clean. He just kept quiet. No one publicly accused him, but he sort of needed to go on the offensive. He's not penalized like Palmerio because it's never been proven (and Bagwell never lied about it; he really hasn't said anything about it).
Frank, on the other hand, went out front and said he never juiced, and no one could prove or even suggest otherwise, so I think people believe him. Also, his body never changed, unlike some of the others.

I bet you see Biggio do a heck of a lot better.

[chicagowhitesox1]

Last I saw Biggio was at 72 percent so he has a good shot. This is from a site that is tallying up all the votes.

[Mr. Jinx]

Originally Posted by SI1020

Posts like this make me want to quit message boards completely.

Yeah, I hate it when people have a different opinion than me. We should just stick to insulting them.

[Mr. Jinx]

Originally Posted by WhiteSox5187

The difference is in that there was no rule against any drugs without a prescription until 1991 which was made in regards to the cocaine scandals of the 1980s. Guys who used steroids broke that rule, guys who used amphetamines (like Aaron and Mays) did not. There is also the question of how much a drug enhanced one's performance. The fact of the matter is anabolic steroids is a far greater enhancer than amphetamines. Amphetamines is really akin to drinking a couple of pots of coffee, it makes you more alert and mentally sharper but does not improve your physical performance. Steroids does.

I'm sure that steroids will provide a greater performance boost, but if amphetamines aren't that big of a deal, then why did mlb ban them? And why then have requests for ADHD drugs increased exponentially after amphetamines were banned? MLB players conveniently seem to have this disorder at a much higher rate than the general population.

http://www.philly.com/philly/health/...cing-drug.html

[TDog]

Originally Posted by Mr. Jinx

I'm sure that steroids will provide a greater performance boost, but if amphetamines aren't that big of a deal, then why did mlb ban them? And why then have requests for ADHD drugs increased exponentially after amphetamines were banned? MLB players conveniently seem to have this disorder at a much higher rate than the general population.

http://www.philly.com/philly/health/...cing-drug.html

Nonetheless, there is huge difference between stimulants and chemicals that unnaturally increase muscle mass.

[chicagowhitesox1]

Last I saw Biggio dropped to 68 percent so it's looking like nobody will be elected.

[TheVulture]

Originally Posted by Mr. Jinx

I'm sure that steroids will provide a greater performance boost, but if amphetamines aren't that big of a deal, then why did mlb ban them?

Why did the NFL ban marijuana? Clearly not a performance enhancer, unless you're Fats Waller.