Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?
Right, lets em charge just that much more for appearing at card shows and the like.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?
- Thread starter jen
- Start date
Fighting Sioux 23
New member
Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?
Prior to a Steak n' Shake opening up in Denver, my wife's cousin once drove 8 hours to Wichita, Kansas to satisfy a Steak n' Shake craving.
Prior to a Steak n' Shake opening up in Denver, my wife's cousin once drove 8 hours to Wichita, Kansas to satisfy a Steak n' Shake craving.
Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?
My freshman year at Illinois there was a Steak n' Shake (on Green Street) half a block from the fraternity house. As a pledge, I made many late night runs for Chili Mac and shakes. I understand her cousin perfectly.
My freshman year at Illinois there was a Steak n' Shake (on Green Street) half a block from the fraternity house. As a pledge, I made many late night runs for Chili Mac and shakes. I understand her cousin perfectly.
Last edited:
Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?
I don't think Bonds and Clemens are going to be permanently excluded from the Hall. They'll get in, they just weren't first-ballot inductees.
McGwire and Sosa were one-trick ponies (one of whom admitted PED use - Sosa never did, did he? I don't think he ever tested positive either - but all the circumstantial evidence points against him) and probably will be excluded. Palmeiro is a tough case - he was a more complete player, but how long did he juice? Wasn't he caught in his last year? I don't know where the line is (or if there should be one) between what's "acceptable" PED use and what's "not acceptable".
By making the choice to use PEDs, those players robbed everyone (and themselves) of knowing for sure if they were HOF-caliber. I think guys like Bonds and Clemens deserve to be punished for a few years. Great players who didn't need it, but did it anyway.
I think Rose is a different argument. The only way he can get in now is if the Veterans Committee decides to allow permanently ineligible players in - or if he's taken off the ineligible list. And yes, I think you CAN keep 4,000 hits out of the Hall of Fame. And I think Shoeless Joe should get in before Rose.
I don't think Bonds and Clemens are going to be permanently excluded from the Hall. They'll get in, they just weren't first-ballot inductees.
McGwire and Sosa were one-trick ponies (one of whom admitted PED use - Sosa never did, did he? I don't think he ever tested positive either - but all the circumstantial evidence points against him) and probably will be excluded. Palmeiro is a tough case - he was a more complete player, but how long did he juice? Wasn't he caught in his last year? I don't know where the line is (or if there should be one) between what's "acceptable" PED use and what's "not acceptable".
By making the choice to use PEDs, those players robbed everyone (and themselves) of knowing for sure if they were HOF-caliber. I think guys like Bonds and Clemens deserve to be punished for a few years. Great players who didn't need it, but did it anyway.
I think Rose is a different argument. The only way he can get in now is if the Veterans Committee decides to allow permanently ineligible players in - or if he's taken off the ineligible list. And yes, I think you CAN keep 4,000 hits out of the Hall of Fame. And I think Shoeless Joe should get in before Rose.
Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?
There isn't an easy fix. For example, I wouldn't go to a system where the top vote getter wins regardless of percentage.
It's not perfect, but maybe when no one wins in the "first round" of voting, there should be run-off election among candidates who got at least 50%. Or, maybe a runoff among the top three in the Round 1. You'd still have the same threshhold for admission; you'd just have an up or down vote on the finalists with fewer distractions. If Round 2 produces no winners, then so be it.
I should emphasize that I'm not hoping for regular runoff elections. Ideally Round 1 would produce at least one winner each year. But shouldn't there be some sort of disincentive for gaming the system with blank ballots?
Finally, note that a rule against blank ballots would be ineffective. That's easily dodged by voting for a single candidate with no chance of winning.
Agreed, and in my mind the fact that no one was elected this year makes it worse. So a group of voters turn in blank ballots to "take a stand," and shrug off the collateral damage? This isn't a noble result; rather, it exposes a flaw in the system.
There isn't an easy fix. For example, I wouldn't go to a system where the top vote getter wins regardless of percentage.
It's not perfect, but maybe when no one wins in the "first round" of voting, there should be run-off election among candidates who got at least 50%. Or, maybe a runoff among the top three in the Round 1. You'd still have the same threshhold for admission; you'd just have an up or down vote on the finalists with fewer distractions. If Round 2 produces no winners, then so be it.
I should emphasize that I'm not hoping for regular runoff elections. Ideally Round 1 would produce at least one winner each year. But shouldn't there be some sort of disincentive for gaming the system with blank ballots?
Finally, note that a rule against blank ballots would be ineffective. That's easily dodged by voting for a single candidate with no chance of winning.
Shirtless Guy
Old Dirty Basterd
Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?
There were less blank ballots this year than last year. To claim "gaming the system" is kind of difficult when the number of blank ballots was low and no worse than most years. I don't really understand whats wrong with turning in a blank ballot. I understand that on paper, quite a few of those up for election have the numbers to get in, but some players have to wait and I have no problem with making the PED users wait longer than they normally would have to.
Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?
I don't like playing the "he might have done it" game. I'm as anti-juicer as they come, but I wouldn't keep out Piazza lets say because I haven't seen any real evidence against him (perhaps he's one of the 100 who failed a test).
Sosa failed the test I believe, as did Palmeiro and McGwire. Bonds was convicted of a misdemeanor as part of the doping. Clemens was acquitted.
So, if someone failed a test they need to give a full and public accounting or they're banned. Take Sosa or Palmeiro. You want people to believe you weren't doping most of your career? Prove it, because the onus is on you now. Same thing when Manny Ramirez comes up, a two time failure. Also Ortiz.
The one I struggle with the most is Clemens. He didn't fail any tests and its only a sleazeball trainer's word against his.
I don't like playing the "he might have done it" game. I'm as anti-juicer as they come, but I wouldn't keep out Piazza lets say because I haven't seen any real evidence against him (perhaps he's one of the 100 who failed a test).
Sosa failed the test I believe, as did Palmeiro and McGwire. Bonds was convicted of a misdemeanor as part of the doping. Clemens was acquitted.
So, if someone failed a test they need to give a full and public accounting or they're banned. Take Sosa or Palmeiro. You want people to believe you weren't doping most of your career? Prove it, because the onus is on you now. Same thing when Manny Ramirez comes up, a two time failure. Also Ortiz.
The one I struggle with the most is Clemens. He didn't fail any tests and its only a sleazeball trainer's word against his.
Shirtless Guy
Old Dirty Basterd
Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?
You do realize that alot of them used PEDs while they were NOT against the rules in baseball. Who's fault is that? If we keep them out FOREVER as you say, does that mean some of the guys in the HOF should be kicked out? Gaylord Perry was notorious for using a spitball which was against the rules.
JF_Gophers
2147483647
Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?
I just think writers are too high on their horse when it comes to HOF balloting. Maybe it needs to be taken away from them for a year or two so they can reset themselves back in to reality.
I just think writers are too high on their horse when it comes to HOF balloting. Maybe it needs to be taken away from them for a year or two so they can reset themselves back in to reality.
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?
The writers have to accept that the baseball they knew is gone. One of the beauties (or THE beauty) of baseball was the historical perspective. You had statistics and individual accomplishment that could be compared across eras. Well, that ship has sailed, sadly, for the Peter Gammons of the earth.
You can sit and talk football and people today kind of accept that older QB don't compare. I hear guys on the radio go on an on how horrible Kenny Stabler was. Ok.
Baseball has become a sport today that is incomparable with its history. All the "numbers" cease to carry value.
Sorry Peter, but it is what it is.
Accept the 'roids. Accept the game is now different. Marvel at your "new" history. And realize it is nothing more than entertainment.
Everyone grew up knowing 714, then 755.
I don't know how many bonds finished with because it no longer matters.
It's not timeless sport. It is big money entertainment.
Put him in the museum.
Put rose "the player" in. Put an exhibit up of rose "the manager" and show how he didn't bet on his team this day and they lost. Entertain me like you try to do on te field in your museum.
The writers have to accept that the baseball they knew is gone. One of the beauties (or THE beauty) of baseball was the historical perspective. You had statistics and individual accomplishment that could be compared across eras. Well, that ship has sailed, sadly, for the Peter Gammons of the earth.
You can sit and talk football and people today kind of accept that older QB don't compare. I hear guys on the radio go on an on how horrible Kenny Stabler was. Ok.
Baseball has become a sport today that is incomparable with its history. All the "numbers" cease to carry value.
Sorry Peter, but it is what it is.
Accept the 'roids. Accept the game is now different. Marvel at your "new" history. And realize it is nothing more than entertainment.
Everyone grew up knowing 714, then 755.
I don't know how many bonds finished with because it no longer matters.
It's not timeless sport. It is big money entertainment.
Put him in the museum.
Put rose "the player" in. Put an exhibit up of rose "the manager" and show how he didn't bet on his team this day and they lost. Entertain me like you try to do on te field in your museum.
Last edited:
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?
I guess it's the same situation as Lance Armstrong then. The only evidence against him is a couple of people who testified as part of a deal.
I guess it's the same situation as Lance Armstrong then. The only evidence against him is a couple of people who testified as part of a deal.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?
Except Lance is/might be days away from doing an interview where he admits to juicing so not the same thing.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/08/showbiz/lance-armstrong-oprah/index.html
Except Lance is/might be days away from doing an interview where he admits to juicing so not the same thing.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/08/showbiz/lance-armstrong-oprah/index.html
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?
Then why lie about it? A-Rod admitted it and I'll bet he's a first-ballot inductee.
Then why lie about it? A-Rod admitted it and I'll bet he's a first-ballot inductee.
Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?
A-Rod did not volunteer the information, he tested positive in the "anonymous" tests from 2003. When the information was subsequently leaked, he merely did not deny it. I wouldn't hold him up as a shining example of candor.
While Jason Giambi is probably not Hall-worthy, he also "admitted" it to the extent that he apologized for his "indiscretions" without specifying exactly what they were. He was a lot more forthcoming than anyone else other than Caminiti and Canseco.
McGuire admitted it but only after he wanted a job as St. Louis hitting coach. He'll never get in is my guess. Except for hitting home runs, he wasn't much of a ball player otherwise, IIRC.
I don't see the absence of anyone being voted in this year as much of a big deal. Next year, Greg Maddux will be a first-ballot inductee for sure, except for some misanthropic pr^ck or two, he should be unanimous but won't be. To me the most deserving player who didn't get the votes you'd otherwise expect was probably Tim Raines.
A-Rod did not volunteer the information, he tested positive in the "anonymous" tests from 2003. When the information was subsequently leaked, he merely did not deny it. I wouldn't hold him up as a shining example of candor.
While Jason Giambi is probably not Hall-worthy, he also "admitted" it to the extent that he apologized for his "indiscretions" without specifying exactly what they were. He was a lot more forthcoming than anyone else other than Caminiti and Canseco.
McGuire admitted it but only after he wanted a job as St. Louis hitting coach. He'll never get in is my guess. Except for hitting home runs, he wasn't much of a ball player otherwise, IIRC.
I don't see the absence of anyone being voted in this year as much of a big deal. Next year, Greg Maddux will be a first-ballot inductee for sure, except for some misanthropic pr^ck or two, he should be unanimous but won't be. To me the most deserving player who didn't get the votes you'd otherwise expect was probably Tim Raines.
jmh
win or lose, we booze
Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?
I continue not to understand this line of reasoning. Except for scoring goals Brett Hull wasn't much of a hockey player, but the HHoF voters didn't see that as much of an obstacle. Yes, McGwire wasn't great at much else besides hitting home runs (if you ignore the .394 career OBP), but he was one of the best of all time at doing the single best thing a position player can do to help his team win games. Why is that treated with derision, as if it's no better than being really good at executing the front end of a double steal or at fielding pickoff throws?
Shirtless Guy
Old Dirty Basterd
Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?
The line of thinking is that the one thing he was really good at is the thing that is most inflated by PEDs so he really doesn't deserve credit for doing special things related to HRs because those numbers are inflated the most by PEDs...or so the line of reasoning goes.
Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?
Fully abstaining would be better, but I'm not sure that's even an option. In other words, can a voter sit out and year and thereby reduce the total number of voters in that year's election? If so, that would be a way making a principled stand while lessening the damage to the innocent. Granted, it would also damage the guilty less. But since no candidate has an entitlement to a yes vote, a true abstention would strike me as a non-issue.
Another angle: A voter should have the integrity to vote "none," as opposed to turning in a blank ballot -- and be prepared to defend that stand. If you really believe that every plausible candidate is tainted, then have the guts to say that.
Suprised to hear that. The sense I got from multiple sources was that worthy candidates were being overlooked by voters turning in blank ballots, or noticeably undervoting. Apparently I was at least somewhat misled. I guess I should have found the numbers myself and taken a direct look. If you want anything done right...
A blank ballot raises an already high bar even higher. For each potential candidate, it counts as a no vote when calculating percentages. So you have a voter claiming the moral high ground, yet ignoring the fact that his actions hurt the innocent and guilty in exactly the same way. OK, it's not a major outrage, but it does rub me the wrong way.
Fully abstaining would be better, but I'm not sure that's even an option. In other words, can a voter sit out and year and thereby reduce the total number of voters in that year's election? If so, that would be a way making a principled stand while lessening the damage to the innocent. Granted, it would also damage the guilty less. But since no candidate has an entitlement to a yes vote, a true abstention would strike me as a non-issue.
Another angle: A voter should have the integrity to vote "none," as opposed to turning in a blank ballot -- and be prepared to defend that stand. If you really believe that every plausible candidate is tainted, then have the guts to say that.
Agree with this point. I just think that having a class with no elected inductees at all is an unfortunate result, and I was trying to think of a way to reduce the odds of that outcome.
Shirtless Guy
Old Dirty Basterd
Re: Cooperstown 2013 - who's in?
I'm pretty this angle has no merit because turning in a blank ballot IS saying NO ONE on this ballot is worthy. I highly doubt that writing anything on a ballot that isn't one of the players on the ballot isn't allowed so writing "none" is pointless. This is just something you concocted to make you feel better. People who turned in blanket ballots are prepared to defend that stand.