Baseball writers prefer PED moralizing, over hard choices (think HOF).
Congratulations Jim Rice!
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
I think this part of the article says it all for the Baseball Writers who vote each year for HOF candidates:
Writers who have belonged to the BBWAA for at least ten years are eligible to vote for the Hall of Fame. It's their job to interpret the hall's instructions, which declare that "voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." A lot of baseball writers, not including Telander, believe there's nothing to the steroids question that this language doesn't cover
Obviously a pitchers W-L record, ERA, saves, etc. over a period of time, or a position players HR's, stolen bases, etc. over time are what get them due recognition. What is and has been of equal importance are the intangibles. Integrity, sportsmanship, character.....
Say what they may, but they all knew at the time that what they were taking or administering to their bodies was going to boost them one way or another. It gave them an unfair advantage over everyone else IMO. I think it was Billy Wagner that was interviewed and he said that these cheaters could have ultimately cost him (and others) their jobs over time, cause them to be demoted, kept them out of the HOF, etc. I applaud his courage for speaking up and not keeping quiet about it.
I for one think the Baseball Writers have it right. They are keeping these individuals who chose to enhance their play with unconventional means out of the distinguished and honorable Hall of Fame. I do however think that another Hall should be opened and called Hall of Shame. THAT is where the Bond's, McGwire's, Sosa's, Palmeiro's, Clemen's, Rodriguez's, Pettite's, etc. of baseball should be inducted.
Writers who have belonged to the BBWAA for at least ten years are eligible to vote for the Hall of Fame. It's their job to interpret the hall's instructions, which declare that "voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." A lot of baseball writers, not including Telander, believe there's nothing to the steroids question that this language doesn't cover
Obviously a pitchers W-L record, ERA, saves, etc. over a period of time, or a position players HR's, stolen bases, etc. over time are what get them due recognition. What is and has been of equal importance are the intangibles. Integrity, sportsmanship, character.....
Say what they may, but they all knew at the time that what they were taking or administering to their bodies was going to boost them one way or another. It gave them an unfair advantage over everyone else IMO. I think it was Billy Wagner that was interviewed and he said that these cheaters could have ultimately cost him (and others) their jobs over time, cause them to be demoted, kept them out of the HOF, etc. I applaud his courage for speaking up and not keeping quiet about it.
I for one think the Baseball Writers have it right. They are keeping these individuals who chose to enhance their play with unconventional means out of the distinguished and honorable Hall of Fame. I do however think that another Hall should be opened and called Hall of Shame. THAT is where the Bond's, McGwire's, Sosa's, Palmeiro's, Clemen's, Rodriguez's, Pettite's, etc. of baseball should be inducted.
quote:Originally posted by YoungGunDad:
[i]Writers who have belonged to the BBWAA for at least ten years are eligible to vote for the Hall of Fame. It's their job to interpret the hall's instructions, which declare that "voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."
This is interesting as it seems the Hall is leaving it up to everybody to interpret for themselves.
See this sign that hangs in the Hall:
My problem with the writers making these decisions is this...Niether Cal Ripken nor Tony Gwynn received 100% of the vote.
Are you kidding me? There are clearly some writers who are not capable of interpreting anything.