Ortiz elected to HOF

[Philip]

8 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

 Aaron and Mays, to name a few, have admitted to taking greenies, a substance banned today.  

But to the best of my knowledge, they weren’t banned at the time, and therefore, they were breaking no rules, and therefore, the comparison is irrelevant.

there are certainly arguments for and against them, but the old “everyone used greenies back in the day” argument is completely irrelevant.

Palmeiro lied to a congressional committee about three weeks before he failed a test. He was one of my idols, and I was crushed. He shouldn’t ever get in.

Im more interested in the dynamic of Pudge being a FBHOFer when his only response to the question of use was,”only God knows.” In other words, he ignored the question completely, and nobody cared.

I also wonder if Cruz gets in. He failed two tests, admitted his fault, said he was sorry, and blah blah blah. Will that be enough for him? Is he still using? He is sure defeating Father Time at the moment. Is he getting help?

 

[Sports Guy]

34 minutes ago, Philip said:

But to the best of my knowledge, they weren’t banned at the time, and therefore, they were breaking no rules, and therefore, the comparison is irrelevant.

there are certainly arguments for and against them, but the old “everyone used greenies back in the day” argument is completely irrelevant.

Palmeiro lied to a congressional committee about three weeks before he failed a test. He was one of my idols, and I was crushed. He shouldn’t ever get in.

Im more interested in the dynamic of Pudge being a FBHOFer when his only response to the question of use was,”only God knows.” In other words, he ignored the question completely, and nobody cared.

I also wonder if Cruz gets in. He failed two tests, admitted his fault, said he was sorry, and blah blah blah. Will that be enough for him? Is he still using? He is sure defeating Father Time at the moment. Is he getting help?

 

I don’t care if they were banned or not.  They are still thought of as substances that enhance your performance.  If it’s wrong to take them And when Bonds played, it was wrong then.

More than anything, baseball knew and didn’t care.  Bunch of hypocrites. 
 

And now you have someone who failed a test and gets in immediately anyway.  Just shows how much of a farce this is.

[Can_of_corn]

8 hours ago, jarman86 said:

Papi has always been a lovable guy. I get the media darling with him, but I don't think thats an issue. I mean, Alomar got blasted and vilified for spitting on an ump, but he still made it in.  From what I remember Piazza wasn't so popular either with media, maybe I'm misremembering. I also think getting Edgar in paved the way for him, and Papi being eligible in an era of unexciting players on the ballot and the risk of going 2 years without electing anyone probably factored in too. 

Yep.  I remember saying to myself, hey look at that lovable Papi taking a bat to that phone.  It's so endearing how he almost hit his teammate.

[Frobby]

8 hours ago, jarman86 said:

Also, to add to it. Barry Bonds was convicted of a felony. He served 30 days home arrest for obstruction of justice. 

Roger Clemens was charged with several felonies, 4 or 5? Commentary after was more that he was acquitted because Pettite backtracked his testimony, his personal trainer had obvious character witness flaws, and the jury felt that 30 days in federal prison wasn't exactly a justifiable punishment for his crimes. Otherwise, he too would be a felon. 

Bonds’ conviction was overturned on appeal.   Therefore, he is not a felon.  Clemens was acquitted and so he’s not a felon either.   That’s how it works here in the United States of America.

It does not take a felony conviction, however, to conclude that someone used steroids and lied about it under oath, for purposes of deciding if that disqualifies him from the Hall of Fame.   

[SpOkane]

I am disappointed that the official Orioles twitter didn't post, "We congratulate Big Papi on his election to the HOF. We tried calling, but our phone was broken."

[Sports Guy]

https://twitter.com/kevinnegandhi/status/1486334317601206275?s=21

[jarman86]

11 hours ago, Frobby said:

Bonds’ conviction was overturned on appeal.   Therefore, he is not a felon.  Clemens was acquitted and so he’s not a felon either.   That’s how it works here in the United States of America.

It does not take a felony conviction, however, to conclude that someone used steroids and lied about it under oath, for purposes of deciding if that disqualifies him from the Hall of Fame.   

Been awhile since the Bonds trial, so my apologies for not remembering all the details of an appeal. Looking at the appeal, it seems like it was a bit controversial what the court decided and they decided moreso on it affecting future defendants than Barry Bonds' actions. And as an attorney, you know that it does not mean Bonds isn't innocent. I think a whole course on cases overturned because of an error in one way or another.

Never said Clemens was a felon. In fact, I said he was acquitted, which is not the same as dismissed. 

Either way, as you said, HOF is not American criminal justice system.

I guess I have a question. Now Sports Guy doesn't like comparisons, but:
How do people, including you, feel about Vizquel? As far as I know he hasn't been convicted of anything, but charged with domestic violence and child sex abuse I believe. Lost his job with the White Sox based on allegations by a minor league bat boy. His votes drop about 20%. Always a guy considered a fringe HOFer. His numbers have been climbing every year and then the drop. Fair or not? What if writers didn't consider those charges and he got in? How would people feel?

Edited January 27, 2022 by jarman86

[Sports Guy]

36 minutes ago, jarman86 said:

Been awhile since the Bonds trial, so my apologies for not remembering all the details of an appeal. Looking at the appeal, it seems like it was a bit controversial what the court decided and they decided moreso on it affecting future defendants than Barry Bonds' actions. And as an attorney, you know that it does not mean Bonds isn't innocent. I think a whole course on cases overturned because of an error in one way or another.

Never said Clemens was a felon. In fact, I said he was acquitted, which is not the same as dismissed. 

Either way, as you said, HOF is not American criminal justice system.

I guess I have a question. Now Sports Guy doesn't like comparisons, but:
How do people, including you, feel about Vizquel? As far as I know he hasn't been convicted of anything, but charged with domestic violence and child sex abuse I believe. Lost his job with the White Sox based on allegations by a minor league bat boy. His votes drop about 20%. Always a guy considered a fringe HOFer. His numbers have been climbing every year and then the drop. Fair or not? What if writers didn't consider those charges and he got in? How would people feel?

Vizquel isn’t a HOFer to begin with.

I don’t feel anything a player does off the field should impact whether or not they get into the HOF.

[jarman86]

15 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Vizquel isn’t a HOFer to begin with.

I don’t feel anything a player does off the field should impact whether or not they get into the HOF.

Well, I hear you, but there were so many opinions he was a fringer and how he had a shot at getting in that before the allegations he was or could be. Then numbers dropped even though nothing in his career changed. So to clarify, you think that is wrong?

And secondly, I will challenge again, to you, it doesn't matter if its a mass murderer, pedophile, whatever, you think people baseball fans, writers, everyone would not care if this type of player got into the Hall? I'm also guessing you are okay with members of the Black Sox getting in? IMO Pete Rose HAS to get in if Bonds and Clemens ever see the Hall. 

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, jarman86 said:

Well, I hear you, but there were so many opinions he was a fringer and how he had a shot at getting in that before the allegations he was or could be. Then numbers dropped even though nothing in his career changed. So to clarify, you think that is wrong?

And secondly, I will challenge again, to you, it doesn't matter if its a mass murderer, pedophile, whatever, you think people baseball fans, writers, everyone would not care if this type of player got into the Hall? I'm also guessing you are okay with members of the Black Sox getting in? IMO Pete Rose HAS to get in if Bonds and Clemens ever see the Hall. 

I answered this.  Whatever they do on the field has no bearing on whether or not they were a HOFer in their sport.

Should OJ be removed from Canton?  Ty Cobb was an awful person.  Should he be taken away?  Where is the line drawn?

If the line is, well you don’t remove anyone, why is that the line?  OJ did terrible things, so if he did them before the HOF voting, he’s out but if he did them after, he’s ok?  That’s just dumb.  You either have a clause or you don’t.  It’s either a privilege or it’s not.  

The morality clause needs to go away.  It’s so subjective and people can choose to play that card whenever they want.  There is no consistency with it.  And those who are judging likely have their own skeletons in the closet.   

And Vizquel isn’t a borderline HOFer.  People arguing that are just wrong.  

[Frobby]

48 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I answered this.  Whatever they do on the field has no bearing on whether or not they were a HOFer in their sport.

Should OJ be removed from Canton?  Ty Cobb was an awful person.  Should he be taken away?  Where is the line drawn?

If the line is, well you don’t remove anyone, why is that the line?  OJ did terrible things, so if he did them before the HOF voting, he’s out but if he did them after, he’s ok?  That’s just dumb.  You either have a clause or you don’t.  It’s either a privilege or it’s not.  

The morality clause needs to go away.  It’s so subjective and people can choose to play that card whenever they want.  There is no consistency with it.  And those who are judging likely have their own skeletons in the closet.   

And Vizquel isn’t a borderline HOFer.  People arguing that are just wrong.  

I agree with the dilemmas you pose, but I do think there must be a line somewhere when it comes to personal conduct, and it’s okay with me if the voters draw that line for themselves rather than having the HOF draw it for them.  

OJ is an interesting example, acquitted in his criminal case but found liable in his civil case.  But let’s say he’d been caught on videotape and found guilty.   Would you still feel it’s irrelevant?

I think there are three ways you can look at an HOF selection:

1.   It’s a recognition of the best players in the sport, period.

2.  It’s a recognition of players who reflect the best values of the sport in addition to being the best players.  

3.  It’s an honor that rewards the player.   

I think (3) is where the problems really come in.   We don’t like rewarding people who have done something bad off the field, or who are bad people generally.   And even if you eliminate (2), (3) just naturally comes into play.   


 

[Sports Guy]

19 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I agree with the dilemmas you pose, but I do think there must be a line somewhere when it comes to personal conduct, and it’s okay with me if the voters draw that line for themselves rather than having the HOF draw it for them.  

OJ is an interesting example, acquitted in his criminal case but found liable in his civil case.  But let’s say he’d been caught on videotape and found guilty.   Would you still feel it’s irrelevant?

I think there are three ways you can look at an HOF selection:

1.   It’s a recognition of the best players in the sport, period.

2.  It’s a recognition of players who reflect the best values of the sport in addition to being the best players.  

3.  It’s an honor that rewards the player.   

I think (3) is where the problems really come in.   We don’t like rewarding people who have done something bad off the field, or who are bad people generally.   And even if you eliminate (2), (3) just naturally comes into play.   


 

It should be #1 and nothing else.

Now, what I wouldn't have a problem with is if there was something on their plaques that said, they were voted in but much of their legacy is defined by incident X.  I don't care if they did something like that.  I don't have a problem with recognizing the greatness of the player by putting them where they belong while also saying, don't be like this guy off the field.

If I go visit Cooperstown, I am not walking around and saying yea but that guy was a prick, so F him.  I don't care.  

[jarman86]

35 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

It should be #1 and nothing else.

Now, what I wouldn't have a problem with is if there was something on their plaques that said, they were voted in but much of their legacy is defined by incident X.  I don't care if they did something like that.  I don't have a problem with recognizing the greatness of the player by putting them where they belong while also saying, don't be like this guy off the field.

If I go visit Cooperstown, I am not walking around and saying yea but that guy was a prick, so F him.  I don't care.  

Fair enough. You got your view. I'd say a very minimal percent probably hold that view in the population, otherwise I think Puig and Addison Russell wouldn't be playing in the mexican leagues right now. Not saying they should be in an Opening Day MLB lineup...but...I don't think they couldn't be an NRI or 40 man. And this is why I do not mind BBWA taking it into account when voting and do not think the system is broke. But to say it was solely because they weren't media darling as you originally did I think is extremely simplified and wrong. Several factors went into it and I get the frustration is that these guys were HOFers with or without the PEDs, but they did what they did and are paying the price. I'm sure they will get in one day.  

Edited January 27, 2022 by jarman86

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, jarman86 said:

Fair enough. You got your view. I'd say a very minimal percent probably hold that view in the population, which is why I do not mind BBWA taking it into account when voting and do not think the system is broke. But to say it was solely because they weren't media darling as you originally did I think is extremely simplified and wrong. Several factors went into it and I get the frustration is that these guys were HOFers with or without the PEDs, but they did what they did and are paying the price. I'm sure they will get in one day.  

Well, you obviously aren’t reading about Ortiz.  Many people feel the reason he got in vs a guy like Bonds (ie what put him over the top) is his persona that he has shown after the game, on TV, etc…

And it’s fine you don’t think the system is broke..many disagree with you including many of the known and outspoken members of the BBWAA.  

[Moose Milligan]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

It should be #1 and nothing else.

Now, what I wouldn't have a problem with is if there was something on their plaques that said, they were voted in but much of their legacy is defined by incident X.  I don't care if they did something like that.  I don't have a problem with recognizing the greatness of the player by putting them where they belong while also saying, don't be like this guy off the field.

If I go visit Cooperstown, I am not walking around and saying yea but that guy was a prick, so F him.  I don't care.  

 

Weren't you the same guy bemoaning how society is crap these days?