Baseball Hall of Fame ballot released

i said i believe it pretty much is bs, but it is said by baseball broadcasters and has been said. i remember it being said about morris.

 

They aren't the only ones. I'm a Bonds supporter as far as the Hall of Fame goes and I'm certainly not one of those guys. A Hall of Fame without Bonds, McGwire, Clemens and A-Rod just doesn't seem legit to me.

 

The tone often seems odd to be, though. A legitimate, reasonable argument can be made about why writers don't think those guys belong in, particularly so soon after the fact. But some of the stathead commenters I've read use that opinion as more fuel that sports writers are just big, oafish idiots who don't understand the game. They argue for Bonds and McGwire in the same tone as they argue, say, against something demonstrably provable statistically. Like you have to be completely clueless to think that steroids were an issue that needs to be confronted. It's really bizarre to me.

 

McGwire's definitely a notch below those guys. ARod and Bonds pretty much were the best in the game or in the argument for best in the game throughout their careers. McGwire had tremendous power, but wasn't even the best on those A's teams. Canseco was and on the team that lost to the Reds Henderson was

 

Because Mark McGwire doesn't want to talk about the past, he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame.

After all, he'd be expected to talk about the past. And he doesn't want to do that.

 

I've never gotten a good answer why in a sport littered with a history of players taking illegal performance-enhancing substances, we should single out one group who just happened to have better chemicals.

 

I agree. Why are baseball writers assumed to "know the game"? The majority were English or journalism majors, got hired into a sports department and at some point were chosen to cover baseball, does that make someone an expert? It might, but what they learn writing about baseball comes from baseball people....players, coaches, GM's, etc. Over time I know certain people learn enough where they could be considered of "knowing the game".

Why not give current HOF (the HOF could elect a group of X number to vote each year to try to eliminate bias) and a select group of people that were actually associated with the game a percentage of the votes?

*counter argument, that's basically what football does and they basically refuse to enshrine defensive players.

**But, I think baseball people would better realize the value of a 2b, or close vs. punter.

 

That's a fair question, but should we also let Ben Johnson keep his Olympic medals then?

But your answer, fair argument as it is, still doesn't answer mine - why the stathead subculture embraces steroid users with the same passion they embrace on-base percentage. My personal conjecture would be that it's a reflexive reaction against sports writers, who they hate and who were mostly anti-steroids.

 

I think that could be a part of it, but it goes beyond just sportswriters,

 

I'm assuming Clemens is the same way?

 

maybe it's not a good explanation but steroids, hgh and performance enhancers like that are different. it's stuff that causes long-term and permanent change in the body. it's going to be hard for anyone to come up with consistent rules or guidelines, but steroids are different than other stuff in the past. when people bring up amphetamines that is really a weak comparison. that is something that causes a temporary change. i know that's not a great or through expanation but steroids and hgh are different.

 

What if McGwire came clean now, especially since he was named as the Cardinals' hitting coach? Very hypothetical, obviously, but what if?