That's your case? 

He spent a season playing A-ball in Florida at age 21 before finding his game?  And then declined in his mid-30's after catching for 11-12 seasons?

And back acne!

Posted by tecwrg on 1/9/2014 10:31:00 AM (view original):
http://baseballhall.org/hall-famers/rules-election/bbwaa

Here's the tricky part:

5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

If a player's integrity or character is in question, then that's supposed to be a consideration.  If one has either knowledge, or credible reason to believe, that a player such as Clemens (or Bonds, or Sosa, or McGwire, or Palmeiro, etc.) cheated and lied about it, then they are supposed to factor that into their decision making process.

Willie Mays, Ted Williams, and Ty Cobb were enormous ******** to virtually everyone around them - players and voting writers alike.  Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle were drunks, often even for games.  And all were overwhelmingly supported for HOF admission.  Roger Clemens is a pitcher on the same level as those guys.  Character has virtually never kept anyone out before, why should it start now?

Posted by tecwrg on 1/9/2014 12:25:00 PM (view original):
That's your case? 

He spent a season playing A-ball in Florida at age 21 before finding his game?  And then declined in his mid-30's after catching for 11-12 seasons?

Such is life in the steroid era.   You can't be picked as a favor, have two nothing minor league seasons, explode against BL pitching, have zits on your back and disappear when PED use becomes an issue. 

Obvious 'roider. 

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/9/2014 12:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/9/2014 10:31:00 AM (view original):
http://baseballhall.org/hall-famers/rules-election/bbwaa

Here's the tricky part:

5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

If a player's integrity or character is in question, then that's supposed to be a consideration.  If one has either knowledge, or credible reason to believe, that a player such as Clemens (or Bonds, or Sosa, or McGwire, or Palmeiro, etc.) cheated and lied about it, then they are supposed to factor that into their decision making process.

Willie Mays, Ted Williams, and Ty Cobb were enormous ******** to virtually everyone around them - players and voting writers alike.  Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle were drunks, often even for games.  And all were overwhelmingly supported for HOF admission.  Roger Clemens is a pitcher on the same level as those guys.  Character has virtually never kept anyone out before, why should it start now?

Because the HOF is a private organization that can do anything it wants.  And voters have the rights to interpret and apply the posted rules as they see fit.

If they wanted to, they (the HOF) could also do away with election rule 3E and put Joe Jackson and Pete Rose on next year's ballot.

I doubt the character of the voters has changed all that much, however...  I think for some reason PEDs really hit home with a lot of guys, likely because their own childhood heroes had their records shattered by perceived users.  FWIW, I don't think we actually disagree on this issue.  You basically stated my exact point on the last page IIRC...  If you really don't want to vote anybody who used in, you don't vote for anybody.

My whole point, from the beginning, was that it was justifiable not to vote for anybody from the perceived "steroid era."  And more recently that has evolved into an argument that, morally speaking, it's probably easier for me to justify voting for neither Clemens nor Maddux than voting for one and not the other.  Easier for me to justify voting for neither Thomas nor McGwire than one and not the other.  The odds are just so good that any given player "cheated," it seems silly to me to just presume innocence for the guys we like.  We have this preconceived notion that steroid guys are power guys: power hitters, power pitchers, big musclebound dudes.  The findings of the Mitchell Report were entirely inconsistent with this stereotype, which doesn't seem to have done it any damage somehow.  Obviously, I don't think the Mitchell Report was in any way comprehensive; however, if it was at all representative, it serves as clear evidence that the fact that a guy is a soft-tosser or a slap hitter does not remove him from suspicion.

It doesn't matter if you're a power pitcher, adding 1-2 MPH to your fastball will make you better, miss more bats and get more weak contact.  Doesn't matter if you're a HR hitter, adding 1-2 MPH to the ball's velocity off the bat will make your batted balls more likely to find holes.  And beyond that, many of the MR guys were only listed as using as part of a rehabilitation process.  Nobody has ever played Major League Baseball long enough to be HOF eligible without having and rehabilitating injuries.  Even a Cal Ripken type inevitably plays through pain and works on some rehab and strength training in-season and during the off-season.  PEDs undeniably help with these things.  There has never been a baseball player who would not have benefited from the use of anabolic steroids and/or HGH.  So nobody is above suspicion.  That includes Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, and Frank Thomas.  I'd bet a lot that AT LEAST one of those guys used PEDs at one time or another; I'd also say that 2 is more likely than 1, and all 3 is more likely than none.  My whole point is that I don't see how it's reasonable to just pick, seemingly arbitrarily, who we're going to clear of wrongdoing and enshrine and who is going to be clouded with suspicion and held out.

No, I think we do disagree here.

You seem to be saying that maybe it makes more sense to just not vote anybody from the steroid era into the HOF, rather than try to pick and choose who used and who didn't.  Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong that that's what you're saying.

My point is that we shouldn't exclude people just because they played during the steroid era.  There's needs to be more than that.  In the case of Bonds, Clemens, etc., there is more.  There are actual accusations (i.e. McNamee and Pettitte for Clemens).  There are records (i.e. BALCO, for Bonds).  As I stated earlier with respect to Clemens, the "burden of proof" for the HOF voters is not at the same level as it would be in a court of law.  But if there is reasonable cause to suspect somebody of doping above and beyond "he played in the steroid era", then that should be a consideration.  Where there's smoke, there's often fire.  Maybe not always, but more often than not.

As far as Maddux and Glavine goes, there is no smoke other than the era in which they played.  So that's why I think it's entirely reasonable to treat players like Maddux and Glavine differently from players like Clemens and Bonds.

Or, Maddux and Glavine had a better distribution system (i.e. fewer snitches and felons in the chain)

Yeah, guys who don't miss a start over 18 seasons isn't smoke at all.   Hundreds of pitchers over the course of time have done that.

I just can't get on that train, tec.  You're basically saying the standard should just be to trust anyone who accuses a player of using PEDs, and assume anyone who hasn't been accused isn't a user?  That doesn't seem like a reasonable way to set a baseline to me.

It's an insane way to set a baseline.  "Well, someone said he was using.   And he hit homers.   PED user is now a fact!!!"

Unless, of course, he wasn't bigger and he was a nice guy.    Probably not using after all. 

I'd be interested to hear whether GUILT BY ASSOCIATION extends to guys that were teammates of users, and were pretty sure that their team was benefiting from the PEDs, if not them directly.  Surely, they should be bound to speak up by the same "character" that the HOF purists seem to be citing.  If they stay silent about their suspicions, they are just as bad (some might argue worse, since they're letting someone else take the risks) as the actual 'roiders.

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/9/2014 2:52:00 PM (view original):
I just can't get on that train, tec.  You're basically saying the standard should just be to trust anyone who accuses a player of using PEDs, and assume anyone who hasn't been accused isn't a user?  That doesn't seem like a reasonable way to set a baseline to me.

Of course accusations shouldn't be blindly accepted as fact.  The accusations need to taken in context, and the situation needs to pass the smell test.

Let's take Clemens and the comments by Andy Pettitte as an example.

Clemens was Pettitte's idol when he was a kid.  He later became his teammate, and they became close friends.  Before Pettitte's comments, there was never any stories about any kind of falling out between the two.  So what would Pettitte's motiviation be for throwing Clemens under the bus the way he did with a lie?  Granted, he used extremely poor judgement in ratting out his friend.  But I can't think of a reason that makes sense other than Pettitte decided to come clean about his own use, and out of some sort of misguided sense of guilt he felt that he needed to drop a dime on Clemens.  He had nothing to gain by doing this (other than maybe a clean conscious), and a lot to lose.

I can't think of a good reason why Pettitte would out himself and then lie about Clemens by outing him as well.  That just doesn't make sense.

Nor does the "Andy must have misremembered" excuse that Clemens gave when he denied Pettitte's statement.  Accusing a close friend of something that's going to cause a huge shitstorm by "mistake" doesn't make much sense either.

So when you look at Pettitte's comments in that light, you have three possibilities: (a) he was telling the truth; (b) he "misremembered"; or (c) he lied.

Only one of those makes sense given the circumstances.

That's kinda my point.  If you know, say, that Roger Clemens was using steroids and YOU DID NOTHING ABOUT IT (except benefit every fifth day from his steroid-enhanced pitching skills), aren't you exhibiting the same lack of character that Roger Clemens showed?  Shouldn't you then be blackballed from the HOF just like Clemens/Bonds?

Especially if you're the SS and the team captain.