2013 MLB Hall of Fame Screechfest

Upstate baseball manufacturer seeks P/T security guards. Apply Box 4, Cooperstown, NY 13326

 

Aww. You really don't like having the ignorance behind your vote exposed, do you? You said Cobb didn't fit the discussion. I and other posters showed you that you were wrong. You still can't admit it, so yes, I'm going out of my way to point out that I was right and you were wrong.

We're exchanging opinions here. I can't tell you what to do with your vote and you have clearly demonstrated that you are too arrogant to listen to what anybody here tells you, anyway. Shoving your vote in other people's faces constantly is what's lame. We have other voters here. They don't do that. You do, so it's pretty damn weak for you to complain when your voting habits draw criticism.

But hey, now you want to jump into the camp that insists on using the 15-year window before allowing suspected steroid users in? Fine. Then if you want to be consistent, you shouldn't vote in ANYBODY from the steroid era until their final season of eligibility.

And why do you and others who think like you end up digging these logical holes for yourselves? Because you want to base your decision on things you don't know. For example, there are plenty of suspected users who you don't know if they did or not. And I'll bet you there is at least one guy from the steroid era who will get in even though he used because nobody thought to accuse him.

 

I hate this last argument. Absolutely hate it.

Guess what? Sometimes murderers get away with it, too. In fact, it happens a lot.

Your solution would be, what? Scrap the entire criminal justice system? Let 'em all walk for consistency's sake?

 

Cmon Dick, the comparison is horrible. As important as it seems to some, it is just the HOF not a court of law, it is just baseball.

I think the era they played in was as level a playing field as any in the history of the game, to me, that is why I would vote for all of them. Steroids were rampant and you know damn well their colleagues were taking them. Is this good enough evidence in a court of law, of course not but I think common sense can be used in this process.

Now players have somehow just developed ADHD and are all hopped up on Adderall, what do the writers and their morality have to say about this?

 

This was one of the traumas of Cobb's career. Although he & Speaker were totally exonerated by Judge Landis, there remained many critics, who sneered that Landis had looked past their "misdeeds".

Here is my personal take. When Cleveland clinched 2nd place, they intended to break training and carouse late into the wee hours. Wood told this to Leonard, and they both felt it would be an opportunity to cash in, due to Cleveland being ill-prepared to contest the next day's battle at full strength. Cobb also felt no big deal in betting. Although he always claimed to not having bet, I don't believe him. I believe he bet.

I believe that Speaker may or may not have had anything to do with anything. But Joe Wood, his best friend and team mate did accuse Tris & Ty of having put up part of the betting money. Leonard lied about everything except the bet. So, Speaker involvement, if any, isn't clear-cut. But Wood's accusation, in conjunction with Leonard's does look as if it tips the balance in favor of Tris betting against his own team. Which, if true, would look more damaging than Cobb betting on his own team to win. But Joe Wood's statements in his Lawrence Ritter interview's is inconsistent.

In his letter to Leonard, he wrote that Cobb told him he didn't bet, and that he believed him. However, in his Ritter interview, he says that both "Cobb & Speaker had put up some of this money to make the bet". So, if they had, and Wood was the one holding the betting money, he would have known this before he wrote his letter to Leonard, in which he seems NOT to have known, whether Cobb put up money.

So, Joe Wood impeaches himself somewhat here. And that is death as a credible witness. So, due to this inconsistency in Wood's statements, I consider Speaker's involvement as unclear & questionable.

 

I think the underlying principle is absolutely the same, this notion that if we can't catch 'em all, we are precluded from catching any of them. Murder too much? OK. How about middle school? Two kids cheat on a test. One gets caught. He's punished. The other walks. We are fine with this result, right?

And, by the way, I think your second argument is completely valid, and what I, again, would be pondering as a voter: Were these guys just drivers going 60 in a 55?

 

Then we will agree to disagree on the first. I see your point but I can't get past the fact that what these players did was just a common part of sports and I can’t equate to the law or even cheating on a test. It was just part of the whole culture and I do compare it to going 60 in a 65. Almost everyone does but few get caught

 

OK, OK. I get the argument now. It's a good one. I have to think about it. Essentially, murder's different not only because it's more serious, but because a small percentage of people do it. Cheating on a test is different because a relatively small percentage of people do it. With steroids, the assumption here is that a high percentage of people were doing it. So it seems silly to punish a few. It was the system itself that was rotten (just assuming for argument here that steroids were/are bad.)

Perhaps this is a better analogy: The D.C. charter school standardized test cheating scandal. No one is punishing the individual students. All the focus is on the institution that enabled it, personified by Michelle Rhee. As, the argument goes, should be the approach here.

 

1. It's good that baseball is trying to prevent PED use for this reason: Their use distorted the game because it's clear the players who were the best to start with also derived the most benefit from using them.
2. Since those players are the ones in the Hall discussion, they will be penalized as scapegoats by those writers who either have hangups about drugs, are full of guilt they ignored the obvious baseball story of the 1990s (Hey, I did too, but I'm not much of a one for guilt), or both.
3. This is stupid, but since we're talking baseball the institution, what else is new?
4. If there HADN'T been so much PED use in the '90s, Pedro Martinez's career ERA might be 0.22.

 

Presuming he didn't use them, too, of course.

 

Well, if he did, it didn't show on his physique. Of course, since Pedro is very smart and exceptionally well read for a ballplayer, it's possible he was using something more sophisticated than his peers. Maybe he was cutting edge involved in genetic alteration and gene doping.

 

Dick, either you completely misunderstood my point or you are intentionally misrepresenting it. Either way, do better.

I'm not saying if we can't catch everybody, we should let them all get away with it, though honestly I'd go that route rather than the foolish approach that you and Mr. IHAVEAHALLOFFAMEVOTESOALLSHOULDBOWANDKISSMIYFEET are advocating, which is to punish people for things without even being sure that they did it.

Now try to keep up this time. My argument is that My argument is if you are going to keep guys out of the Hall of Fame based on accusations and guesswork rather than just those who are actual proven users, then you are punishing players for what they might have done. Everybody from the steroid era is under suspicion, so the logical conclusion from your approach would be to make every player from the steroid era wait the full 15 years.

Again, if you only want to keep the proven users out, I still disagree, but at least that is a reasonable approach. But that isn't good enough for you and Mr. IHAVEAHALLOFFAMEVOTESOALLSHOULDBOWANDKISSMIYFEET. Y'all want to punish anybody who has even been accused and any journalist should know better. Sadly, there seem to be too many Hall of Fame voters who forgot the journalistic ethics that helped them get it in the first place.