Bonds, Clemens and Sosa shut of of Hall of Fame Voting

Rented Mule

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8828339/no-players-elected-baseball-hall-fame-writers

NEW YORK -- Steroid-tainted stars Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Sammy Sosa were denied entry to baseball's Hall of Fame, with voters failing to elect any candidates for only the second time in four decades.

In a vote that keeps the game's career home run leader and one of its greatest pitchers out of Cooperstown -- at least for now -- Bonds received just 36.2 percent of the vote and Clemens 37.6 in totals announced Wednesday by the Hall and the Baseball Writers' Association of America. Both fell well short of the 75 percent necessary, while Sosa, eighth on the career home run list, got 12.5 percent.

The Baseball Writers Association of America have spoken up. I wonder when Major League Baseball will do the same.

Waitsian

Meh.

Tbh I could care less. I have no desire to ever visit the HOF, of any sport quite frankly, but in this case Cooperstown. There are quite a few tainted players in there already, tainted in that some cheated, some were just plain nasty and others are only there for reasons other than their baseball skills.

It's members are 'elected' by print journalists for C***** sakes! It's all entirely subjective. Why should you, or I, or even players, care what a small clique of writers think are those 'deserving' of entry? For that matter do I care who gets MVP awards or other individual awards? No I don't, don't give a damn.

I want to see the team I have cheered for and watched since I was a boy do well, and have fun in the watching. Beyond that, meh.

MoyVilla9

mod9maple wrote: »

Meh.

Tbh I could care less. I have no desire to ever visit the HOF, of any sport quite frankly, but in this case Cooperstown. There are quite a few tainted players in there already, tainted in that some cheated, some were just plain nasty and others are only there for reasons other than their baseball skills.

It's members are 'elected' by print journalists for C***** sakes! It's all entirely subjective. Why should you, or I, or even players, care what a small clique of writers think are those 'deserving' of entry? For that matter do I care who gets MVP awards or other individual awards? No I don't, don't give a damn.

I want to see the team I have cheered for and watched since I was a boy do well, and have fun in the watching. Beyond that, meh.

Can't say I agree with you there. It's a massive honor to have "Hall of Fame" beside your name, as it should be.

Waitsian

MoyVilla9 wrote: »

Can't say I agree with you there. It's a massive honor to have "Hall of Fame" beside your name, as it should be.

You can't agree that I should be allowed an opinion based on my own personal feelings and for the reasons I've stated?

If you think otherwise that's your prerogative, but don't just dismiss my points. Given what I said, why do you think it is a massive honour, and why should it be?

namloc1980

The HoF is the pinnacle to what all players strive for. Of course it's an honour and to say otherwise is nonsense.

On the point of Bonds etc. I think MLB have a big problem here. None of the guys linked to the use of PEDs have had any of their records or stats taken away or wiped out so they remain among the best players ever to play the game, yet they are shunned for the HoF. It's a joke. MLB, the HoF and the baseball writers need to do one of 2 things:

1. Wipe these guys records from the history books (like Armstrong in cycling) or,
2. Accept what happened is a part of baseball history and have them inducted.

Waitsian

namloc1980 wrote: »

The HoF is the pinnacle to what all players strive for. Of course it's an honour and to say otherwise is nonsense.

So you make a statement and then don't back it up? It's nonsense to say it isn't an honour because you say so? Why is it such an honour, given that it's not decided on stats or the opinion of fellow pros but is actually voted on by a handful of people on the whole planet whose reasons for voting are never clarified and are based on personal opinions? At least I gave reasons for mine, unlike you and the voting writers.

You think all players become pro ball players to reach the HOF? That's the pinnacle? You're deluded. They're pro players who first and foremost want to earn a living from the sport; the next ambition is make the post-season at least once in a career; after that, maybe a division title or league champions; the ultimate is the World Series win, with participation in a WS a close second.

Breaking records is nice and all, but it doesn't get these guys out of bed every day. :rolleyes:

namloc1980

mod9maple wrote: »

So you make a statement and then don't back it up? It's nonsense to say it isn't an honour because you say so? Why is it such an honour, given that it's not decided on stats or the opinion of fellow pros but is actually voted on by a handful of people on the whole planet whose reasons for voting are never clarified and are based on personal opinions? At least I gave reasons for mine, unlike you and the voting writers.

You think all players become pro ball players to reach the HOF? That's the pinnacle? You're deluded. They're pro players who first and foremost want to earn a living from the sport; the next ambition is make the post-season at least once in a career; after that, maybe a division title or league champions; the ultimate is the World Series win, with participation in a WS a close second.

Breaking records is nice and all, but it doesn't get these guys out of bed every day. :rolleyes:

I'll let the great Barry Larkin answer this one (skip to 1.30)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA1-5KUOw80

Throwing out personal insults is pretty cheap. Is that how you normally deal with people who don't agree with you?

Waitsian

namloc1980 wrote: »

Throwing out personal insults is pretty cheap. Is that how you normally deal with people who don't agree with you?

I don't care what Barry Larkin thinks, I want to know what you think.

And how have I insulted you? Saying you're deluded? That's not an insult, at least not in my world. Alright, how about mistaken? Misguided? Misinformed? Misled?

MoyVilla9

mod9maple wrote: »

You can't agree that I should be allowed an opinion based on my own personal feelings and for the reasons I've stated?

If you think otherwise that's your prerogative, but don't just dismiss my points. Given what I said, why do you think it is a massive honour, and why should it be?

Of course you are allowed an opinion. I just do not agree with it. Why are you coming off so aggressive?

I do see where you are coming from, and your argument may have merit. I just feel that the Hall of Fame should not be dismissed as easily as you have dismissed it.

Waitsian

MoyVilla9 wrote: »

Of course you are allowed an opinion. I just do not agree with it. Why are you coming off so aggressive?

I do see where you are coming from, and your argument may have merit. I just feel that the Hall of Fame should not be dismissed as easily as you have dismissed it.

Aggressive? Really? I suppose that's one downside of the Internet, one can't get a sense of the underlying mood of the person responding. I'm not being aggressive, not at all.

Why should it not be dismissed? I'm genuinely interested. I don't get this fascination with a museum that 'awards' an 'honour' based on the subjective views of a miniscule demographic, namely baseball print writers.

Let's take the whole 'deserving' debate for starters. Let's allow for the fact that this small group of people are best suited to bestow this honour - by what criteria do they decide? Stats; personality; public persona; ability and willingness to pander/deal with said press; 'clean' from PEDs; a 'sportsman' on the field; doesn't gamble; doesn't cheat on his wife? All of the above - and if so, what percentage of importance is accorded each? And there are multiple more - where does it end?

Ty Cobb - nasty dude by all accounts. Roberto Alomar - spat in an umpire's face. Gaylord Perry - blatantly doctored baseballs. Barry Bonds - juiced his aging body to achieve more power.

Should the last mentioned get in, given the first three are there already? And who decides and why? A handful of sports writers?

Why not just judge the players by stats alone? Does it matter what a player does on and off the field, how he lives his life? They're ball players, judge them on how they played baseball. WAR, FIP, ERA, OBP, whatever. What kind of Hall of Fame do you want? The kind that operates now doesn't interest me. And I would be pretty sure it doesn't interest most players whether or not they ever make it.