OC Register: David Ortiz elected to Baseball Hall of Fame; Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens left out

[T.G.]

In my younger days, I might have become a little "worked up" over this stuff, but as I've gotten older, I don't pay too much attention to this stuff.  It's out of my control... so... why get worked up about it? 

Most things in life aren't perfect.  The HOF definitely has flaws. 

I heard the new president of the HOF on the mlb network radio this morning... he said, they don't see the point in telling voters how to vote.  What's the point in having voters if you have to dictate how they vote.  So, if the HOF itself doesn't care enough or have the desire to change the parameters or even set real parameters, why should I care?  Some of the voters have no clue... and many have bias...  Again, it's flawed.  It's not likely to change either.

I'd still like to visit the place some day.  I'd even like to see an induction ceremony... but it's not some sacred institution to me.

[failos]

The Baseball HoF has become a joke like the Oscar Awards. But maybe it’s always been a joke since guys like Bobby Grich were never inducted.

[T.G.]

9 minutes ago, failos said:

The Baseball HoF has become a joke like the Oscar Awards. But maybe it’s always been a joke since guys like Bobby Grich were never inducted.

I am obviously a huge Bobby Grich fan... but I'm not broken up over the fact that he's not in the HOF.  He certainly has the analytics to back up an argument to put him in; especially when you compare him to some of the others already in the HOF.  And that's the thing... when you compare him to others - some of those "others" probably shouldn't be in the HOF either. 

When I think of HOFers, I think of guys like Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Roberto Clemente... not guys like Harold Baines, Jim Rice, Jack Morris... and not necessarily Bobby Grich.

[Jeff Fletcher]

I voted for Bonds and Ortiz and A-Rod and Manny and Sheffield, so I pretty much don't care about PEDs.

That being said, everyone who is saying that the PED case against Ortiz is the same as Bonds and A-Rod is mis-informed. I think Ortiz is much more in the boat of Piazza, Bagwell, Pudge, Sheffield, Sosa, etc.

Did he use steroids? Probably. Is there overwhelming evidence? No.

Ortiz reportedly tested positive during a survey period when there were no penalties and no appeal process. Maybe if there had been a penalty on the line, he'd have appealed and won his case and we'd never know about it. But there was no option for that. Maybe his story that he took the wrong thing from GNC is true.

Again, I'm not saying he's innocent. He's probably not. I'm just saying he's much more like Piazza (who is in) than Bonds (who isn't). So there is a legitimate distinction to be made for those voters so inclined to make that distinction (again, not me).

Also, there was only an 11-percent difference in Bonds and Ortiz's vote totals, so it's not nearly as inconsistent as the 37-point difference between Ortiz and Sheffield or the 59-percent gap with Sosa. I think Sheffield and Sosa supporters ought to be a lot more upset today than Bonds supporters.

[T.G.]

13 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Ortiz reportedly tested positive during a survey period when there were no penalties and no appeal process. Maybe if there had been a penalty on the line, he'd have appealed and won his case and we'd never know about it. But there was no option for that. Maybe his story that he took the wrong thing from GNC is true.

I believe even Manfred has cast doubt on the validity of that report... So, to your point - he's never tested positive since testing has been instituted. 

I'm paraphrasing here... but someone said if it was up to Manfred - he'd vote for those who are worthy AND who have never tested positive.  That would mean guys like Bonds and Clemens would get in.  Guys like Palmeiro, Manny Ramirez and ARod would not.

It's messy.  It's not likely to ever be resolved. 

[Dtwncbad]

18 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I voted for Bonds and Ortiz and A-Rod and Manny and Sheffield, so I pretty much don't care about PEDs.

That being said, everyone who is saying that the PED case against Ortiz is the same as Bonds and A-Rod is mis-informed. I think Ortiz is much more in the boat of Piazza, Bagwell, Pudge, Sheffield, Sosa, etc.

Did he use steroids? Probably. Is there overwhelming evidence? No.

Ortiz reportedly tested positive during a survey period when there were no penalties and no appeal process. Maybe if there had been a penalty on the line, he'd have appealed and won his case and we'd never know about it. But there was no option for that. Maybe his story that he took the wrong thing from GNC is true.

Again, I'm not saying he's innocent. He's probably not. I'm just saying he's much more like Piazza (who is in) than Bonds (who isn't). So there is a legitimate distinction to be made for those voters so inclined to make that distinction (again, not me).

Also, there was only an 11-percent difference in Bonds and Ortiz's vote totals, so it's not nearly as inconsistent as the 37-point difference between Ortiz and Sheffield or the 59-percent gap with Sosa. I think Sheffield and Sosa supporters ought to be a lot more upset today than Bonds supporters.

Do you “not care” about PEDs or would it be more accurate to say you accept that the use of PEDs was widespread and we have no mechanism to know who did and who didn’t use them. . . and believe that it is probably pretty reasonable to believe that when guys like Bonds were juiced in the batters box, the no-name middle reliever he was facing very well could have been also “juiced”?

I just can’t give in to believing that the problem was like 90% contained to high-profile famous sluggers, as most discussions on this subject seems to go.

I am “forgiving” of some of the big name guys labeled as cheaters (in the context of being HOF worthy) mostly because I absolutely don’t believe that the use of PEDs wasn’t far more widespread among starting pitchers and relievers across the league.  So did Bonds really have an “unfair” advantage when he was certainly facing juiced pitchers on a regular basis?

It just can’t be resolved in any fair way, so I kind of chalk it up to it simply being an embarrassing characteristic of an era in the game.

Do I like Barry Bonds?  No.  Outside of this subject, the guy was a complete dick.

But I also don’t want to measure his greatness by that either.

Anyway, I am curious if you somewhat just accept the PEDs as a widespread issue of an era in the game that can’t really be properly addressed or resolved by just conveniently persecuting a handful of the KNOWN “guilty” players.

Edited January 26, 2022 by Dtwncbad

[Vegas Halo Fan]

I heard Rob Parker on MLB Network this morning. He has proposed a one-and-done presence on the HOF ballot for players. I also agree with his statement that a player is either HOF worthy or he isn't - none of this "I'm not voting for him in the first or second year, but I will in the third" business. Nothing changes in the meantime. Too much gamesmanship on ballots.

[Jeff Fletcher]

3 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Do you “not care” about PEDs or would it be more accurate to say you accept that the use of PEDs was widespread and we have no mechanism to know who did and who didn’t use them. . . and believe that it is probably pretty reasonable to believe that when guys like Bonds were juiced in the batters box, the no-name middle reliever he was facing very well could have been also “juiced”?

I just can’t give in to believing that the problem was like 90% contained to high-profile famous sluggers, as most discussions on this subject seems to go.

I am “forgiving” of some of the big name guys labeled as cheaters (in the context of being HOF worthy) mostly because I absolutely don’t believe that the use of PEDs wasn’t far more widespread among starting pitchers and relievers across the league.  So did Bonds really have an “unfair” advantage when he was certainly facing juiced pitchers on a regular basis?

It just can’t be resolved in any fair way, so I kind of chalk it up to it simply being an embarrassing characteristic of an era in the game.

Do I like Barry Bonds?  No.  Outside of this subject, the guy was a complete dick.

But I also don’t want to measure his greatness by that either.

Anyway, I am curious if you somewhat just accept the PEDs as a widespread issue of an era in the game that can’t really be properly addressed or resolved by just conveniently persecuting a handful of the KNOWN “guilty” players.

yeah, all that. Here's what I recently wrote about it.

https://t.co/bX9UgqXpZh

 

[fan_since79]

I was really hoping Dick Allen would finally get in. Probably never at this point. He might have burned too many bridges with his confrontational personality, but he endured enough racism in his time, that's for sure.

I still think of him as Richie Allen and was introduced to his greatness as a young fan in 1964 in Philadelphia. His numbers put him right on the cusp in Bill James' HOF rating system. 

[T.G.]

2 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

yeah, all that. Here's what I recently wrote about it.

https://t.co/bX9UgqXpZh

 

"Character is a moving target, while performance isn’t" 

Great point, Jeff.

[Jeff Fletcher]

1 minute ago, Vegas Halo Fan said:

I heard Rob Parker on MLB Network this morning. He has proposed a one-and-done presence on the HOF ballot for players. I also agree with his statement that a player is either HOF worthy or he isn't - none of this "I'm not voting for him in the first or second year, but I will in the third" business. Nothing changes in the meantime. Too much gamesmanship on ballots.

I don't believe this is actually a thing any more. Maybe it was 30 years ago. But I don't believe that there are any significant number of current voters who withhold a vote for someone who they plan to vote for later. 

Now, actually changing your mind is an entirely different thing. 

Generally the way I do it is if I voted no on you, I will re-evaluate you each year and may or may not change my mind. I almost never change my mind on someone who I voted for.

If they want to make it one-and-done, that's fine with me. But it pretty dramatically changes the rules midstream and would make it hard to compare past HOFers to guys on future ballots. How many current HOFers would never have made it if they only had one shot?

[Jeff Fletcher]

2 minutes ago, True Grich said:

"Character is a moving target, while performance isn’t" 

Great point, Jeff.

Thanks.

If stuff that Curt Schilling and Omar Vizquel do after retirement is going to affect their case, then I guess no one should be on the ballot till after he's dead.

[Dtwncbad]

4 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

yeah, all that. Here's what I recently wrote about it.

https://t.co/bX9UgqXpZh

 

That is a fantastic article.

The only big point that I think would have fit into it well is the fact that masking science has proven to be ahead of the testing.  How can anybody ignore Lance Armstrong?

How can anybody believe that players willing to take steroids would not also be willing to utilize the advancement in masking techniques to never get caught?

The point being we are all permanently trapped in a reality of never ever being able to really know if 5% of players were using PEDs or if it was 93%.

Common sense would tell me it would have been very prevalent among the bottom third of players fighting to have one good year before their one free agent contract, where the difference was either a one year deal for $750k or a three year deal that secures $2.2m.

No matter how much we want it to not be true, the PED ingredient has already been fully mixed into the dough and it can’t be taken out.

So we have little choice other than just accept that reality.

[floplag]

8 minutes ago, True Grich said:

"Character is a moving target, while performance isn’t" 

Great point, Jeff.

This is the most important point, courtesy @Jeff Fletcher 
Character changes, even the game changes... At the end of the day they have to be measured based on what was done on the field, not off it, and certainly not by any arbitrary definition of character.

[Dtwncbad]

11 minutes ago, True Grich said:

"Character is a moving target, while performance isn’t" 

Great point, Jeff.

I have read the character language many times.  I personally believe it is there to ALLOW some consideration for positive influences as a teammate or clubhouse presence if that is truly part of a players value.

I think it is fair to say a guy with 2800 hits instead of 3000 can be as legitimate a HOFer as the 3000 hit guy if they were clearly a positive emotional leader on the field.  It sure seems to me that baseball wanted to have some language I there to allow that kind of consideration.

I do not think the subject of “character” was ever intended to disqualify a player that statistically is a no-brainer.

[Amazing Larry]

Does getting shot for porking a drug lord's wife count as character?

[T.G.]

The more I think about it, the more I appreciate Jeff's approach to the process. 

I guess the "problem" I have had with guys like Bonds is that his "performance" was enhanced by PED's.  Then again, since baseball failed to hold guys like Bonds accountable - why should the writers?

Again, it's messy.

At the end of the day, I still don't care.  It's interesting to talk about though.

[tdawg87]

24 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

yeah, all that. Here's what I recently wrote about it.

https://t.co/bX9UgqXpZh

 

I didn't read it yet but I clicked on it.

[Jeff Fletcher]

2 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

I didn't read it yet but I clicked on it.

That's all that matters

[Jeff Fletcher]

So I don't want to dive into the cesspool of Twitter, but I have to vent about a couple other things, so you guys are gonna get it...

It's ridiculous to blame the BBWAA for its position on the PED guys. You can have any body you want vote (fans, former players, HOFers, executives, plumbers, etc.) and at least 25 percent of them are going to think cheaters shouldn't be in the HOF. I would love to have the HOF turn it over to some other group, and then when they come back with the same results, I'm just going to sit back and laugh.

Further, it's the HOF itself that very clearly has indicated that it does not want steroid guys elected. They reduced the years on the ballot from 15 to 10, which was pretty much a direct shot at the steroid guys once they realized their numbers were rising. They sent out a letter, signed by HOFer Joe Morgan, telling voters they didn't want PED guys in the HOF. They ignored the BBWAA's request to make 100 percent of the ballots public.

That's all for now.

[tdawg87]

2 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

So I don't want to dive into the cesspool of Twitter, but I have to vent about a couple other things, so you guys are gonna get it...

It's ridiculous to blame the BBWAA for its position on the PED guys. You can have any body you want vote (fans, former players, HOFers, executives, plumbers, etc.) and at least 25 percent of them are going to think cheaters shouldn't be in the HOF. I would love to have the HOF turn it over to some other group, and then when they come back with the same results, I'm just going to sit back and laugh.

Further, it's the HOF itself that very clearly has indicated that it does not want steroid guys elected. They reduced the years on the ballot from 15 to 10, which was pretty much a direct shot at the steroid guys once they realized their numbers were rising. They sent out a letter, signed by HOFer Joe Morgan, telling voters they didn't want PED guys in the HOF. They ignored the BBWAA's request to make 100 percent of the ballots public.

That's all for now.

I think you have far more patience than most here. 

I would probably quit Twitter after 5 minutes of reading the garbage you likely do. If the official Facebook page is any indication of the intelligence of the average baseball fan, I can only imagine how bad it is on Twitter.

[Dtwncbad]

I am also a broken record on the distinction between the HOF being a museum that voters should be primarily interested in keeping historically accurate, and not at all concerned about how an individual player may personally feel rewarded or punished by being voted on or not.

Again, my personal opinion, but exactly zero of my interest is how Bonds or Clemens personally feel about being in the HOF.

The fact that players literally DO feel personally awarded or punished doesn’t at all mean that voters should consider this angle.

The fact is at some point Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens will be dead and long gone.

Doesn’t it make sense to strive for the personal discipline in voting to prioritize historical accuracy over exploiting the voting moment to create an emotional outcome (I am punishing you!) in the player personally?

[Tank]

3 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

I think you have far more patience than most here. 

I would probably quit Twitter after 5 minutes of reading the garbage you likely do. If the official Facebook page is any indication of the intelligence of the average baseball fan, I can only imagine how bad it is on Twitter.

take the geniuses you see on facebook and divide by 40 = twitter

[Dtwncbad]

10 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

So I don't want to dive into the cesspool of Twitter, but I have to vent about a couple other things, so you guys are gonna get it...

It's ridiculous to blame the BBWAA for its position on the PED guys. You can have any body you want vote (fans, former players, HOFers, executives, plumbers, etc.) and at least 25 percent of them are going to think cheaters shouldn't be in the HOF. I would love to have the HOF turn it over to some other group, and then when they come back with the same results, I'm just going to sit back and laugh.

Further, it's the HOF itself that very clearly has indicated that it does not want steroid guys elected. They reduced the years on the ballot from 15 to 10, which was pretty much a direct shot at the steroid guys once they realized their numbers were rising. They sent out a letter, signed by HOFer Joe Morgan, telling voters they didn't want PED guys in the HOF. They ignored the BBWAA's request to make 100 percent of the ballots public.

That's all for now.

Joe Morgan was an asshole.  If we want to get into voting to reward or punish players personally rather than strive for historical accuracy, then Joe a Morgan signing that letter would instantly trigger me to vote for the every player that ever tested positive. . . Just to “punish” the asshole Joe Morgan.

[Tank]

whoa, i did not have "groundbreaking baseball statistician condones cheating" on my 2022 bingo card.

https://twitter.com/billjamesonline/status/1486084183227305984?s=20