2022 Baseball HOF ballot

[steg22]

No one is getting screwed more than Mark McGwire. He's the ONLY one who went before Congress and didn't lie. He took the 5th (his constitutional right) and got killed for doing so by the press and fans.

I thought McGwire handled everything like a man. I'm not saying he belongs in the Hall of Fame, but he should be at the top of the steroid users list because he didn't lie or deceive.

[Bcr]

Originally Posted by no10pin

Straight from the HOF website:

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.

The problem I have with character is that it's only used to punish people and never reward. If we are willing to punish all time greats for character then why aren't we rewarding others?

They should be voting based on how they play, you know... baseball, and let the league do the punishing. We don't need writers playing the moral police to baseballs highest achievement.

[inaka]

Originally Posted by steg22

No one is getting screwed more than Mark McGwire. He's the ONLY one who went before Congress and didn't lie. He took the 5th (his constitutional right) and got killed for doing so by the press and fans.

I thought McGwire handled everything like a man. I'm not saying he belongs in the Hall of Fame, but he should be at the top of the steroid users list because he didn't lie or deceive.

McGwire stonewalled congress by just repeating "I'm not here to talk about the past" and you're right he has every right to do so.

However, in the press, McGwire denied using steroids for years. Only under oath did he not lie or deceive. He also trashed Jose Canseco for telling the truth, saying Jose was a liar, and categorically denied Canseco's allegations and attacked Jose's character (what little there is LOL). All of which we now know to be true, that's why no one sued Jose.

Say what you will about the off-the-field antics and personality of Jose Canseco, but Canseco eventually told the truth before anyone else did.

He went so far as to say statements none of those other guys would ever admit to saying, such as when Canseco said, "I would never have been a major league caliber player without steroids." That's some truth that is brutally honest.

To me, if people think McGwire should be at the top of the steroid users list, then it's merely a reflection to me of just how low that bar is.

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by Bcr

The problem I have with character is that it's only used to punish people and never reward. If we are willing to punish all time greats for character then why aren't we rewarding others?

They should be voting based on how they play, you know... baseball, and let the league do the punishing. We don't need writers playing the moral police to baseballs highest achievement.

Great post.

Great point.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by BigSeph

It takes guts to stand on your achievements, even when slander-artists use your name to promote their own sense of self-righteousness.

Some might do what A-Rod and Ortiz have done, and try to kiss up to the media.

Others might confront each media member who tries to smear them with gossip and innuendo.

Clemens and Bonds are not giving the "head on a platter" crowd anything at all. And that's exactly what they deserve- nothing.

The longer they hold out in silence, the more obvious it becomes that a group of self-appointed moral arbiters are keeping them out not because of any failed drug test within the realm of baseball itself, but due to gossip and hearsay. The writers are the ones who look like junior high girls gossiping about Suzy and refusing to let Suzy into their little club.

Bonds and Clemens look like the adults in this situation.

It doesn't matter what you THINK they did, and keeping them from being enshrined in the HOF when they were obviously 2 of the best 15 players to ever play baseball, just shows how morally superior to everyone, not just Bonds and Clemens, they think they are.

So good for them, the longer they remain stoic in the face of this witch hunt, the more the writers and other romanticized fairy tale "baseball" fans are revealed to be hypocrites and frauds.

See: all the cheaters, segregationists and "bad people" already in the HOF.

Lol at the self-righteous hypocrite calling out a trader in his signature, but turning a blind eye to his favorite proven cheaters. Writers aren't voting for Bonds and Clemens because of rumors and innuendo. They are not voting for them because of real evidence that they doped. In Bonds case, they are using his own words, under oath in court, that he took the clear and cream, illegal steroids against baseball's rules.

Lol at thinking Bonds and Clemens are top 50 players. If they were, they wouldn't have needed to cheat by taking illegal steroids and cheat the game. Neither was good enough to make the Hall of Fame without cheating. That is why voters are not voting for them.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Bcr

The problem I have with character is that it's only used to punish people and never reward. If we are willing to punish all time greats for character then why aren't we rewarding others?

They should be voting based on how they play, you know... baseball, and let the league do the punishing. We don't need writers playing the moral police to baseballs highest achievement.

Buck O'Neil is on the ballot because of his character and it is very likely that he gets elected this year. His playing career isn't remotely worthy of the HOF. It is only the way he has promoted game and Negro Leagues after his career that has generated support and put him on the ballot. If you dont think that player's character helped them get elected to the HOF, then you aren't very knowledgeable about the history of the game. Pee Wee Reese is one example.

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by rats60

Lol at the self-righteous hypocrite calling out a trader in his signature, but turning a blind eye to his favorite proven cheaters. Writers aren't voting for Bonds and Clemens because of rumors and innuendo. They are not voting for them because of real evidence that they doped. In Bonds case, they are using his own words, under oath in court, that he took the clear and cream, illegal steroids against baseball's rules.

Lol at thinking Bonds and Clemens are top 50 players. If they were, they wouldn't have needed to cheat by taking illegal steroids and cheat the game. Neither was good enough to make the Hall of Fame without cheating. That is why voters are not voting for them.

I mean, do you think none of this is on the internet and you can just claim anything you want and nobody will hold your nose in the pile of poop you drop off in a thread?

Bonds' attorney, Michael Rains, said the leak of the testimony was an attempt to discredit his client. Grand jury transcripts are sealed and the Chronicle did not say who showed them the documents.

Rains described Anderson and Bonds as close friends who had been training together for about the last four years.

"Greg knew what Barry's demands were. Nothing illegal," Rains said at a news conference in Oakland. "This is Barry's best friend in the world. Barry trusted him. He trusts him today. He trusts that he never got anything illegal from Greg Anderson."

Even if the substances Bonds took were steroids, Rains said they were not banned by baseball at the time and the slugger believed they were natural. Bonds also maintains the substances did nothing to aid his rise as one of the game's greatest home run hitters, Rains said.

"Barry was tested several times this year and the results of those tests were negative," said Bonds' agent, Jeff Borris.

"He put together statistically one of the most remarkable seasons ever," Borris said in an interview. "There are people in this world whose sole purpose is to try and figure out ways on how to undermine the accomplishments of others."

https://www.deseret.com/2004/12/4/19...smear-campaign

Bolded points for emphasis.

The same guys who paint an imaginary picture of what baseball or the HOF is are often willing to paint imaginary pictures of history too.

You sort of need to craft your own special echo chamber to avoid the glaringly obvious double standards and hypocrisy.

I think it's cute that you label me a hypocrite, because I've been logically consistent throughout my history on this forum. They were among the best baseball players ever, they never failed a drug test, whatever they did they did within the boundaries of the system in which they played. Once MLB got tougher on steroids, it's much easier to make a case against guys like Manny Ramirez because he got popped multiple times. But neither Bonds NOR Clemens ever admitted to knowingly using steroids (even if media outlets try to frame it as though Bonds admitted using steroids) and neither ever failed a test.

The "case" against them is ENTIRELY based on hearsay and rumors.

Notice the title of the article I linked to, and compare it to what Bonds actually said.

That type of rephrasing/wrapup smear works on a lot of people. But it doesn't work on me.

They were also both acquitted for allegations of perjury, making false statements and obstruction. Bonds was found guilty of obstruction but even that was thrown out on appeal.

So here are 2 guys, #4 and #8 in ALL-TIME WAR in MLB history, being kept out of the baseball hall of fame and given their due as all-time greats, with no actual proof whatsoever that they knowingly took PEDs, and no legal convictions for anything they said or did, and a bunch of sanctimonious holier-than-thou baseball writers are hell-bent on keeping them out of their cool kids treehouse club until after they die, because why?

Because the writers have turned the MLB HOF into a private club, and if they don't like you, they don't let you in.

It's not about honoring the greats of baseball history anymore.

It's about the writers.

[Bcr]

Originally Posted by rats60

Buck O'Neil is on the ballot because of his character and it is very likely that he gets elected this year. His playing career isn't remotely worthy of the HOF. It is only the way he has promoted game and Negro Leagues after his career that has generated support and put him on the ballot. If you dont think that player's character helped them get elected to the HOF, then you aren't very knowledgeable about the history of the game. Pee Wee Reese is one example.

Buck O'Neil and Pee Wee Reese are both elected by the Veterans Committee and NOT the writers.

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by Bcr

Buck O'Neil and Pee Wee Reese are both elected by the Veterans Committee and NOT the writers.

[WizardofOz1982]

Originally Posted by BigSeph

I mean, do you think none of this is on the internet and you can just claim anything you want and nobody will hold your nose in the pile of poop you drop off in a thread?


https://www.deseret.com/2004/12/4/19...smear-campaign

Bolded points for emphasis.

The same guys who paint an imaginary picture of what baseball or the HOF is are often willing to paint imaginary pictures of history too.

You sort of need to craft your own special echo chamber to avoid the glaringly obvious double standards and hypocrisy.

I think it's cute that you label me a hypocrite, because I've been logically consistent throughout my history on this forum. They were among the best baseball players ever, they never failed a drug test, whatever they did they did within the boundaries of the system in which they played. Once MLB got tougher on steroids, it's much easier to make a case against guys like Manny Ramirez because he got popped multiple times. But neither Bonds NOR Clemens ever admitted to knowingly using steroids (even if media outlets try to frame it as though Bonds admitted using steroids) and neither ever failed a test.

The "case" against them is ENTIRELY based on hearsay and rumors.

Notice the title of the article I linked to, and compare it to what Bonds actually said.

That type of rephrasing/wrapup smear works on a lot of people. But it doesn't work on me.

They were also both acquitted for allegations of perjury, making false statements and obstruction. Bonds was found guilty of obstruction but even that was thrown out on appeal.

So here are 2 guys, #4 and #8 in ALL-TIME WAR in MLB history, being kept out of the baseball hall of fame and given their due as all-time greats, with no actual proof whatsoever that they knowingly took PEDs, and no legal convictions for anything they said or did, and a bunch of sanctimonious holier-than-thou baseball writers are hell-bent on keeping them out of their cool kids treehouse club until after they die, because why?

Because the writers have turned the MLB HOF into a private club, and if they don't like you, they don't let you in.

It's not about honoring the greats of baseball history anymore.

It's about the writers.

I'm all for putting Bonds and Clemens in the Hall because it was an era of the game just like the rampant use of amphetamines from the 40s-80s was an era and we don't penalize those players.

However, trying to say that Bonds' confirmed use of PEDs is all based on hearsay and rumor is blatantly incorrect or just outright homerism. The man admitted under oath to using both the cream and the clear, even if he claimed he thought it was flax seed oil and anti-inflammatory cream which is as ridiculous as Clinton's claims that he never had sex with that woman. We know exactly what the cream and the clear were thanks to the investigation of BALCO and meticulous notes both from the chemists at BALCO and from Greg Anderson himself, who Bonds paid to go to jail for him instead of testifying. He also popped positive for Amphetamines in 2006, after they'd been banned, and didn't deny it. Instead he tried to blame it on a teammate.

[fabiani12333]

A column from a first time Hall voter and long time sports writer who covered Bonds' entire Giants career:

For one thing, the character clause was discussed. The Hall of Fame is a private club, its leaders make the voting rules, and they say a voter must consider the candidate’s character.

Most of the ball scribes I know do not have a doctorate in psychology, nor do they have access to the deep secrets of the people on whom they’re voting. How do we take character into account?

Bonds as a player was world-class rude to many around him: writers, teammates, managers, front-office personnel, fans. Was that a matter of character, or personality? The character clause needs to be defined or stricken. Otherwise, it’s a sham, like the “I wish for world peace” portion of the Miss Universe contest.
...
I am sanctimonious, by the definition of the pro-Bonds voters who mock voters who leave Bonds off their ballots because he cheated. I would feel bad voting for someone who cheated. However, I would remind myself that almost all of the players during Bonds’ alleged cheating time were either juicing, were actively fighting any form of drug-testing, or both. The players basically set the ground rules by which Bonds played.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/o...d-16604231.php

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by WizardofOz1982

I'm all for putting Bonds and Clemens in the Hall because it was an era of the game just like the rampant use of amphetamines from the 40s-80s was an era and we don't penalize those players.

If PEDs couldn’t cause permanent bodily harm, or worse, you may have had a slight chance of making a case.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by rats60

Lol at the self-righteous hypocrite calling out a trader in his signature, but turning a blind eye to his favorite proven cheaters. Writers aren't voting for Bonds and Clemens because of rumors and innuendo. They are not voting for them because of real evidence that they doped. In Bonds case, they are using his own words, under oath in court, that he took the clear and cream, illegal steroids against baseball's rules.

Lol at thinking Bonds and Clemens are top 50 players. If they were, they wouldn't have needed to cheat by taking illegal steroids and cheat the game. Neither was good enough to make the Hall of Fame without cheating. That is why voters are not voting for them.

No one makes this claim but you. Bonds and Clemens both reportedly started using steroids after they had established themselves as all-time greats -- Bonds had already won 3 MVPs by '93 and Clemens had won 3 Cy Youngs by '91.

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by Bcr

The problem I have with character is that it's only used to punish people and never reward. If we are willing to punish all time greats for character then why aren't we rewarding others?

They should be voting based on how they play, you know... baseball, and let the league do the punishing. We don't need writers playing the moral police to baseballs highest achievement.

Anyone who couldn’t name borderline HOFers who got in on character doesn’t deserve to post in this thread.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by MoreToppsPlease

If PEDs couldn’t cause permanent bodily harm, or worse, you may have had a slight chance of making a case.

Abuse of any substance causes harm. Too much sugar causes diabetes. Too much alcohol causes brain damage and liver failure.

Moderate use of steroids has not been shown to cause long term harm.

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

No one makes this claim but you. Bonds and Clemens both reportedly started using steroids after they had established themselves as all-time greats -- Bonds had already won 3 MVPs by '93 and Clemens had won 3 Cy Youngs by '91.

It seems reasonable to assume they cheated well before then, PEDs or otherwise. After all, it’s indisputable that neither ever possessed HOF character or integrity.

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

Abuse of any substance causes harm. Too much sugar causes diabetes. Too much alcohol causes brain damage and liver failure.

Moderate use of steroids has not been shown to cause long term harm.

Sugar and alcohol aren’t illegal according to baseball & don’t produce a competitive advantage.

“Moderate” is meaningless…and you know it.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by MoreToppsPlease

It seems reasonable to assume they cheated well before then, PEDs or otherwise. After all, it’s indisputable that neither ever possessed HOF character or integrity.

There's been no reporting of that. And if they used PEDs, I think it's safe to say a lot of their teammates used PEDs as well.

I also think it's safe to say at least most of the modern era Hall of Famers took some kind of PED.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by MoreToppsPlease

Sugar and alcohol aren’t illegal according to baseball & don’t produce a competitive advantage.

“Moderate” is meaningless…and you know it.

Alcohol was illegal once. It's not legal to sell after a certain time in a lot of places.

Added sugar has been bad for society -- plain and simple. It's caused a lot of harm to people, especially children.

A lot of things can create a competitive advantage for players -- analytics, for example. There is no such thing as purity in the game -- it's never existed.

There is right way and wrong way to use steroids. Just like there's a right way and wrong way to use prescription drugs. Misuse of drugs can cause harm.

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

There's been no reporting of that. And if they used PEDs, I think it's safe to say a lot of their teammates used PEDs as well.

I also think it's safe to say at least most of the modern era Hall of Famers took some kind of PED.

The only person saying “it’s safe to say” - whatever that means - is you.

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

Alcohol was illegal once. It's not legal to sell after a certain time in a lot of places.

Added sugar has been bad for society -- plain and simple. It's caused a lot of harm to people, especially children.

A lot of things can create a competitive advantage for players -- analytics, for example. There is no such thing as purity in the game -- it's never existed.

There is right way and wrong way to use steroids. Just like there's a right way and wrong way to use prescription drugs. Misuse of drugs can cause harm.

This is completely out of context and meaningless, it’s grasping at straws.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by MoreToppsPlease

The only person saying “it’s safe to say” - whatever that means - is you.

You do realize anabolic steroids are legally prescribed, right?

Studies show it doesn't cause long term harm if used properly. Long term and sustained use can cause harm -- that's why users need to cycle their usage.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by MoreToppsPlease

This is completely out of context and meaningless, it’s grasping at straws.

What? I'm responding point-by-point to your post.

[BigSeph]

Originally Posted by WizardofOz1982

I'm all for putting Bonds and Clemens in the Hall because it was an era of the game just like the rampant use of amphetamines from the 40s-80s was an era and we don't penalize those players.

However, trying to say that Bonds' confirmed use of PEDs is all based on hearsay and rumor is blatantly incorrect or just outright homerism. The man admitted under oath to using both the cream and the clear, even if he claimed he thought it was flax seed oil and anti-inflammatory cream which is as ridiculous as Clinton's claims that he never had sex with that woman. We know exactly what the cream and the clear were thanks to the investigation of BALCO and meticulous notes both from the chemists at BALCO and from Greg Anderson himself, who Bonds paid to go to jail for him instead of testifying. He also popped positive for Amphetamines in 2006, after they'd been banned, and didn't deny it. Instead he tried to blame it on a teammate.

That is correct.

The statements from Bonds were that he used the "cream" and the "clear" which he thought were flaxseed oil and some kind of arthritis balm.

That's what he said.

I don't buy it for a second. But there is no smoking gun text message, or voicemail, or letter, or any tangible bit of evidence to prove that Barry Bonds willingly injected, ingested, or applied anything he knew to be anabolic steroids.

It's the equivalent of a court case with a missing murder weapon, no DNA evidence, no text message, voicemail or letter or any tangible proof, and the killer claims he didn't do it.

You and others might feel pretty confident that he did it, because the media told you he did for years. Or the media said he was a total scumbag.

But that's not enough to convict someone in a court of law.

Should rumor and innuendo be enough justification for a bunch of writers (who told you how awful and horrible Bonds was for years) to grind their petty small axes and deny him his RIGHTFUL place in the baseball hall of fame?

You can say yes if you want to. I say no.

Neither of us has a vote.

But like I said earlier in the thread, it speaks volumes about what type of people these "voters" are. Their decision to vote for them, or not, says just as much about them as it does about Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens.

Who are, again, top-8 in all-time WAR in MLB history.

These are not borderline hall of famers, these are upper echelon hall of famers. The 3 guys between Bonds and Clemens on the WAR list are Mays, Cobb, and Aaron.

And they are being kept out, like I said, based on hearsay and rumors.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by BigSeph

But like I said earlier in the thread, it speaks volumes about what type of people these "voters" are. Their decision to vote for them, or not, says just as much about them as it does about Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens.

The voters who dont vote for Bonds and Clemens are the minority -- 248 votes for Bonds and 247 for Clemens in the 2021 vote.

What that says is the minority group of voters believe the the majority are morally wrong for voting for Bonds and Clemens; or they hold a personal grudge against Bonds and Clemens; or they're negligent in their basic duties as voters.

Because Bonds and Clemens are worthy of the Hall of Fame on the basis of performance and accomplishments and relative to the ethics and character of the players already in.

Last I checked, neither Bonds or Clemens were suspended or banned by MLB. Neither have a criminal record. So how can they be such terrible human beings as to not be worthy of the Hall?