Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa and Roger Clemens don�t have the integrity, sportsmanship or

Republicaninmass · #1 12-25-2021, 10:46 AM

So Ortiz..among all he did for baseball, aside from anonymous 2003 claim, keeps him out of this guys vote?

I guess its a matter if opinion, but if you kept all the classless characters out of the hall, and added the watered down names because they were stand up guys, it's not a true representation.

It least not to me. I guess he has a holier than thou approach.

If taking greenies, using ethnic slurs, being a womanizing alcoholic etc would have kept people out, youd have half the members now enshired. Now its convenient to hold your ground having a moral compass.

Pedro Martinez "let the bambino come to the plate, I'll drill him in the A$$"

Countless others.

Seven · #2 12-25-2021, 10:54 AM

It's hypocrisy to the highest degree. The Hall of Fame has enshrined people that have done far worse than take PED's. Not to mention the fact it's very likely there are PED users already in the Hall of Fame. Cap Anson was a detestable human being, but a great player and he's in the Hall, I'd argue that's infinitely worse than anything that Bonds ever did.

Republicaninmass · #3 12-25-2021, 12:02 PM

Notice how those attributes come LAST in the description.

egri · #4 12-25-2021, 06:07 PM

If the voters never let in anyone with a character issue, then the entire Hall would be an exhibit about Christy Mathewson.

Republicaninmass · #5 12-25-2021, 06:59 PM

Wikipedia is a great read on this guy. Clearly need the ratings, and should lose his vote. Mostly for his Ortiz comments.

The column attracted the attention of ESPN personality Keith Olbermann, who awarded Simmons the title of "Worst Person In The Sports World".[11

Simmons was referenced in a spoof letter supposedly written by Phil Kessel after Kessel had won the Stanley Cup with the Pittsburgh Penguins in 2016. The post script of the letter reads thus: "How did the country that produced literary giants like Margaret Atwood and Alice Munro also crap out Steve Simmons?"

Mike D. · #6 12-25-2021, 07:28 PM

I occasionally write about baseball and/or baseball cards on the internet. Whenever I start to get �imposter syndrome�, thinking maybe I�m not worthy (I�m no Peter Gammons or Bill James, after all), I go read material from so called �professional� writers out there, and the feeling goes away in a hurray.

In a world where Dan Shanessy has a job that doesn�t involve making French fries, I can feel ok about sharing my thoughts in print. I read an article on mlb.com recently where a professional writer argued both that Billy Wagner didn�t belong in the hall of fame both because of his low career IP total (900+) and because of his playoff performance (career postseason IP - 11.2).

I tend to think that the biggest problem with HOF voting is that the people who are competent and actually care and the actual people who get a vote barely overlap.

clydepepper · #7 12-25-2021, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by egri

If the voters never let in anyone with a character issue, then the entire Hall would be an exhibit about Christy Mathewson.

I can think of a few more in there with Matty:

Walter, Hank, Brooks, Ernie B., Harmon, Buck O'N. Mariano, etc, etc

.

Seven · #8 12-26-2021, 07:54 AM

I definitely think changes need to be made, in terms of whose allowed to keep their vote, and who exactly gets a vote. I think if you submit a blank ballot, as a form of "Protest" that should be grounds to lose your vote. You're just clogging up the system, and strikes me as an attempt to garner attention.

Also, I have no issue if a voter believes in a "Small Hall" mentality. But the idea of leaving a guy off your ballot, whose a surefire Hall of Famer, with no links to PED's, for an asinine reason of "he played during x time period" pisses me off to no end. The most prominent example of this, in recent memory at least, was when Ken Gurnick voted for Jack Morris, but not Greg Maddux in 2014. His rationale behind it was "Maddux played during the steroid era, but Morris didn't" which makes no sense considering PED's were being used in the 80's as well! Still fires me up, just typing it out! He thankfully has abstained from voting in future elections, but there are more like him out there.

BobC · #9 12-26-2021, 08:17 AM

It is interesting how in the article, Simmons talks about integrity, sportsmanship, and character as the three HOF qualifications that he can't vote for certain people because of. Then he goes on about how Schilling is not so great a person either, but because his issues are off the field issues, that's okay and he votes for him. But then he brings up Vizquel, and his "off the field" allegations, and how he will no longer vote for him now. So, why are some "off the field" issues okay and others aren't, especially when at this point I believe in Vizquel's case there have been no formal charges ever filed or final determinations made?

Now if Vizquel is ever proven to be to guilty of all that was alleged, well that is a discussion for another day. But it goes back to what one poster mentioned about unproven PED allegations relating to some former players, like Ortiz. Nothing has to be proven for someone to still be considered unworthy for election to the HOF apparently.

Well, if they can decide to exclude someone for simple allegations, what would/should they do if someone is elected to the HOF, and then subsequently does (and is proven to have done) something despicable? Should they go back and remove that person from the HOF then, because if not, it shows their system for determining eligibility for enshrinement can be quite arbitrary and totally dependent on timing. Though not the baseball HOF, the primary example of this type of dilemma would be O.J. Simpson. He's in Canton still, but had he done some of the things he's done prior to getting elected to the HOF, do you really think he would have still been enshrined? And if not, why should he be be left in now? I believe Cooperstown would do about the same as Canton does.

And why do we still leave it up to a small group of sport media personnel to decide who is worthy for election to Cooperstown anyway? Beginning back in 1936 I can understand the baseball writers being given the task, because there was no TV and games were played during the day, when most normal people worked during the week. The sport writers were the one known independent group that was able to attend all the games and actually see all these players play, in person, so as to better judge who was worthy of enshrinement. With night games, TV coverage, streaming services and such the norm now, pretty much everyone can watch all the games and players they want. Since the HOF is really more for the fans than anyone else, why not figure out a way to let the fans decide who should or shouldn't get in. Would make a lot more sense.

Eric72 · #10 12-26-2021, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobC

...Since the HOF is really more for the fans than anyone else, why not figure out a way to let the fans decide who should or shouldn't get in. Would make a lot more sense.

On the surface, that makes sense to me. However, I can envision unintended consequences. For example, a few "social media influencers" could drastically impact voting results.

"...so-and-so wouldn't sign my jersey years ago, and I've always hated him. Everyone get together and vote for other players so this clown doesn't get in the Hall. Who cares if he got 3,000 hits, 500 HR, and 3 rings; his (hand-picked stat) was horrible..."

Peter_Spaeth · #11 12-26-2021, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clydepepper

I can think of a few more in there with Matty:

Walter, Hank, Brooks, Ernie B., Harmon, Buck O'N. Mariano, etc, etc

.

Maybe, but do we even know really? It's a fairly recent trend that the world learns about people's every bad action.

Mike D. · #12 12-27-2021, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Maybe, but do we even know really? It's a fairly recent trend that the world learns about people's every bad action.

Reminds me of Kirby Puckett. He was a beloved angel�until he wasn�t. Lucky for him he got into the HOF before scandal hit.

rwilfong86 · #13 01-06-2022, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seven

It's hypocrisy to the highest degree. The Hall of Fame has enshrined people that have done far worse than take PED's. Not to mention the fact it's very likely there are PED users already in the Hall of Fame. Cap Anson was a detestable human being, but a great player and he's in the Hall, I'd argue that's infinitely worse than anything that Bonds ever did.

Exactly. I've also thought the writers have no business being the ones who get to vote players in. Who pays to go to the Hall? The fans. It should be a combination of fans and baseball people. Writers are too judgmental and will let their own personal pettiness get in the way of doing the right thing.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sammy Sosa	Jim65	Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk	15	01-29-2018 06:43 PM
Sammy Sosa Inscribed 609 HR & Barry Bonds 762	dirdigger	Autographs & Game Used B/S/T	0	04-23-2016 10:24 AM
Ken Griffey RC Lot & Sammy Sosa RC Lot F/S	g&m sales	1980 & Newer Sports Cards B/S/T	0	03-30-2015 08:44 PM
OT: Bonds, Clemens, Sosa to be on HOF ballot	t206blogcom	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	144	12-01-2012 05:15 AM
Roger Clemens Vs Barry Bonds???	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	19	12-19-2007 03:52 PM