And it's in, Ortiz has been elected to the Hall

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by ajjohnsonsoxfan

Papi never tested positive in ALL the years after the rules were put in place. He's a deserving 1st ballot HOFer. I've never witnessed a better clutch hitter.

Having said that, I do also believe, Clemens and Bonds deserve to be in.

That is proof how horrible the testing was.

[G1911]

Bonds and Clemens didn’t test positive in all the years the testing was in place either. It makes zero logical sense that Ortiz and Ortiz alone is forgiven while everyone else continues to be denied. Ortiz was nowhere near as good as Bonds, Rodriguez, Clemens.

This years ballot seems to have very little to due with the 2 dominating factors of recent history: statistical performance and steroid status. Ortiz is let in for no consistent logical reason, Schilling is denied because for the first time ever people want to invoke the character clause for off field behavior (can anyone cite any single example of a player kept out of the hall for off field behavior?) to punish outspoken political views the media writers as a group hate, Vizquel has a historic plummet over his much more serious off the field allegations.

Hell, how does Gary Sheffield get more votes than Alex Rodriguez? This ballot appears the result of different than normal standards and outright double standards.

[SteveMitchell]

For me the story is the BBWAA voters' trash treatment of Curt Schilling. Either he was qualified (close to it, finishing first in 2021 at 71.1% following years of 70% and 60.9% in 2020 and 2019, respectively) or the BBWAA votes don't amount to much. Seems like the BBWAA will punish Schilling with a lengthy wait because he's outspoken politically. The obvious HOF votes go to the BBWAA and when they miss one (like Schilling) it's due to ignorance or ignorance and bias. Haven't followed MLB since they went woke two years ago. All that's left of Baseball interest to me is its history including (to a far lesser degree) the Hall of Fame. Oh, of course, pre-2020 cards and collectibles.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by SteveMitchell

For me the story is the BBWAA voters' trash treatment of Curt Schilling. Either he was qualified (close to it, finishing first in 2021 at 71.1% following years of 70% and 60.9% in 2020 and 2019, respectively) or the BBWAA votes don't amount to much. Seems like the BBWAA will punish Schilling with a lengthy wait because he's outspoken politically. The obvious HOF votes go to the BBWAA and when they miss one (like Schilling) it's due to ignorance or ignorance and bias. Haven't followed MLB since they went woke two years ago. All that's left of Baseball interest to me is its history including (to a far lesser degree) the Hall of Fame. Oh, of course, pre-2020 cards and collectibles.

Curt Schilling advocated the killing of reporters in the United States. Fuck him and the horse he rode in on. That's not politics. That's called character and human decency.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Curt Schilling advocated the killing of reporters in the United States. Fuck him and the horse he rode in on. That's not politics. That's called character and human decency.

It more likely was a jackass in Curt's case.

[FourStrikes]

Originally Posted by SteveMitchell

For me the story is the BBWAA voters' trash treatment of Curt Schilling. Either he was qualified (close to it, finishing first in 2021 at 71.1% following years of 70% and 60.9% in 2020 and 2019, respectively) or the BBWAA votes don't amount to much. Seems like the BBWAA will punish Schilling with a lengthy wait because he's outspoken politically. The obvious HOF votes go to the BBWAA and when they miss one (like Schilling) it's due to ignorance or ignorance and bias. Haven't followed MLB since they went woke two years ago. All that's left of Baseball interest to me is its history including (to a far lesser degree) the Hall of Fame. Oh, of course, pre-2020 cards and collectibles.

agree.

[SyrNy1960]

@ MINES_MINT

- Playing the what about game and diverting to Pujols (or any other player for that matter) does nothing to strengthen the argument for Ortiz because it does not erase the fact that he cheated.

* My post had nothing to do with Ortiz. If you read any of my other posts, my take on the steroid era always has been none of them should get in. Period! However, they’ve already put some PED users in the HOF (Bagwell, Rodriguez, Piazza, etc.) from that era. So now my take on it is, if you let one in, they all get in. Period! Can’t pick and choose. Put an asterisk next to their names and call it a day.

- Furthermore, unlike Ortiz, Pujols has never tested positive for PEDs

* Neither did any of the current players in the HOF from that era (and in the past) that used PEDs. Remember, Pudge Rodriguez never denied it. Didn’t test positive. He said, “Only God knows’ if I tested positive for steroids.” Guilty! He played it safe, just in case proof would surface later.

- and filed a defamation suit against Jack Clark who publicly retracted his statement saying that he had "no knowledge whatsoever that Mr. Pujols has ever used illegal or banned PEDs".

* Of course he did. No physical evidence, lawsuit, money, etc. Still doesn’t make it not true. He did it only because he had no choice, because he wouldn’t have won in court. Pujols knew by doing it, it would shut Clark down. Common sense. No brainer. Happens all the time. This is why so many people don’t speak out against others.

As I stated in an earlier post, Ortiz could have filed a defamation suit against the newspaper just as easily but chose not to. What reason would Ortiz have to not file a lawsuit other than the fact that he knew he couldn't win? He knew he was using banned substances and there was actual evidence to back that up.

* I don’t disagree with you that Ortiz used steroids, so nothing more to add.

[MINES_MINT]

@3arod13

my fault. I got ahead of myself and after rereading I better understand where you were going with your post now.

I think I've just heard "what about (blank)" too many times recently regarding this topic haha.

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by MINES_MINT

@3arod13

my fault. I got ahead of myself and after rereading I better understand where you were going with your post now.

I think I've just heard "what about (blank)" too many times recently regarding this topic haha.

Understand. No worries. We don't live in a perfect world, so I just try to go with it. Many people on NET54 make a lot of great points and give me things to think about differently, so that's a good thing. Live and learn, that's what I always say.

Thanks, Tony

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by G1911

Bonds and Clemens didn’t test positive in all the years the testing was in place either. It makes zero logical sense that Ortiz and Ortiz alone is forgiven while everyone else continues to be denied. Ortiz was nowhere near as good as Bonds, Rodriguez, Clemens.

This years ballot seems to have very little to due with the 2 dominating factors of recent history: statistical performance and steroid status. Ortiz is let in for no consistent logical reason, Schilling is denied because for the first time ever people want to invoke the character clause for off field behavior (can anyone cite any single example of a player kept out of the hall for off field behavior?) to punish outspoken political views the media writers as a group hate, Vizquel has a historic plummet over his much more serious off the field allegations.

Hell, how does Gary Sheffield get more votes than Alex Rodriguez? This ballot appears the result of different than normal standards and outright double standards.

Schilling will never get in after his evil rants. Far beyond the "character clause" with him.

[nat]

Schillings problem wasn't that his rants were political, it's that they targeted the guys voting on the hall of Fame. If you want to win an election, treating the electorate badly is a very poor strategy. (See, eg, both "makers and takers" and "deplorables", and note who didn't win their respective elections.) There are plenty of conservatives in the hall of Fame.

And this year in particular, his vote totals may be due, in part, to asking to be removed from the ballot. The hall declined to do so, but individual voters may have honored his wishes.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Schilling will never get in after his evil rants. Far beyond the "character clause" with him.

You might think it is a good thing that it is being invoked for the first time ever, but keeping him out for "evil rants" absolutely falls under the character clause, unless one is saying that the Hall should completely ignore it's own rules to keep out vocal supporters of the political opposition. Which.... Well, that's not surprising these days at all.

[Orioles1954]

Character clause and yet Cap Anson is still in. What a hoot!

[Jason19th]

I do not understand the Schilling debate. I would argue that while being a jerk doesn’t help the majority of pitchers with similar records are not in the Hall see Luis Tiant, Ron Guidry, Vida Blue, Bob Welch, Dave Stewart, Bucky Walters, Orel Herschiser, Lew Burdette, Kevin Brown, Dave Key, David Cone, David Wells, Billy Pierce, Allie Reynolds, Don Newcombe and many more that I cannot think of right now.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by Jason19th

I do not understand the Schilling debate. I would argue that while being a jerk doesn’t help the majority of pitchers with similar records are not in the Hall see Luis Tiant, Ron Guidry, Vida Blue, Bob Welch, Dave Stewart, Bucky Walters, Orel Herschiser, Lew Burdette, Kevin Brown, Dave Key, David Cone, David Wells, Billy Pierce, Allie Reynolds, Don Newcombe and many more that I cannot think of right now.

But, but the bloody sock!

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Character clause and yet Cap Anson is still in. What a hoot!

Ain't that the truth. Unofficial rule: character issues only count much for people whose most front page news time was prior to the 1980s. If you were an awful person before that, it often doesn't matter and you are still revered (unless you threw games, bet on ones you managed, or chopped up puppies and kittens).

And I'm not even sure the chopped part would matter.

This rule often applies outside of baseball as well.

[SyrNy1960]

Curt Schilling said, “I would rather not be judged by the writers, but by the former players and historians who make up the Hall’s Era Committees. That appears to be the best route to Cooperstown.”

I believe most of us would agree with that. Like many of us who have our own individual personal views, attitudes, and justifications about the PED guys, so do the writer’s, and unfortunately, it’s only their votes that count.

I believe most are smart enough to know that those players we talk about used PEDs (don't need a positive test or a smoking needle to know that), and there are many others that we don’t know about. We don’t know all who used; how much they used, and how long they used; and we will never know. People can put whatever spin they want on it, in order to justify how they see it, but we all know!

With that being said, I have no issues with Ortiz being in the Hall of Fame. Except that I'm a die-hard Yankee fan, so that part hurts.

[Jim65]

Papi failed a test. Manfred said it might have been a false positive but that he failed a test is a fact.

If Papi was a disliked guy, like Barry Bonds, writers would've used that test to justify not voting for him. But since hes well liked, enough writers gave him the benefit of the doubt or looked the other way to vote him in.

Writers have proven they cannot be fair and objective. Baseball needs a new voting system.

[jakebeckleyoldeagleeye]

Originally Posted by G1911

Bonds and Clemens didn’t test positive in all the years the testing was in place either. It makes zero logical sense that Ortiz and Ortiz alone is forgiven while everyone else continues to be denied. Ortiz was nowhere near as good as Bonds, Rodriguez, Clemens.

This years ballot seems to have very little to due with the 2 dominating factors of recent history: statistical performance and steroid status. Ortiz is let in for no consistent logical reason, Schilling is denied because for the first time ever people want to invoke the character clause for off field behavior (can anyone cite any single example of a player kept out of the hall for off field behavior?) to punish outspoken political views the media writers as a group hate, Vizquel has a historic plummet over his much more serious off the field allegations.

Hell, how does Gary Sheffield get more votes than Alex Rodriguez? This ballot appears the result of different than normal standards and outright double standards.

Ortiz couldn't hold Bonds glove or anyone's for that matter. Kid Clank makes Steve Bilko look like a Gold Glover.

[FourStrikes]

Originally Posted by G1911

Bonds and Clemens didn’t test positive in all the years the testing was in place either. It makes zero logical sense that Ortiz and Ortiz alone is forgiven while everyone else continues to be denied. Ortiz was nowhere near as good as Bonds, Rodriguez, Clemens.

This years ballot seems to have very little to due with the 2 dominating factors of recent history: statistical performance and steroid status. Ortiz is let in for no consistent logical reason, Schilling is denied because for the first time ever people want to invoke the character clause for off field behavior (can anyone cite any single example of a player kept out of the hall for off field behavior?) to punish outspoken political views the media writers as a group hate, Vizquel has a historic plummet over his much more serious off the field allegations.

Hell, how does Gary Sheffield get more votes than Alex Rodriguez? This ballot appears the result of different than normal standards and outright double standards.

boom.

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

Originally Posted by bnorth

That is proof how horrible the testing was.

Don't know how good or bad it was. I'm not a doctor or a steroid lab technician. But the testing did catch quite a few players and Papi wasn't one of them.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by ajjohnsonsoxfan

Don't know how good or bad it was. I'm not a doctor or a steroid lab technician. But the testing did catch quite a few players and Papi wasn't one of them.

Much better quality testing never caught Lance Armstrong. It usually only catches the players that can'i afford the good stuff. Plus when the test they only test for one or a very small number of PEDs. It is not a test that each time covers everything. That would be way to expensive. This is not a guess by me I have a 30+ year friend that works at the lab in Las Vegas that tests pro athletes for PEDs.

[egri]

My thought process used to be 'keep the juicers out', but when Bud Selig, and a lot of the other managers/executives who enabled PED usage (or at least looked the other way) started going in, I figured it was a bit hypocritical to keep out only the players.

[MikeF34]

Originally Posted by bnorth

That is proof how horrible the testing was.

Did Bonds... so why the double standard.. maybe that Drug Lord has some pull in the hall votes

[Peter_Spaeth]

Take a step back and enjoy the moment, what an outfit, what a reaction.

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/mlb/...t%20all%2Dtime).