(01-06-2015 04:10 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Ken Griffey, Jr., in his prime (which sadly was relatively short), was one of the 10-15 greatest players of all time IMO.

5 tool player. Was nothing short of incredible. Never, ever mentioned in the steroid talk although he played in that era.

Whoever doesn't vote for him in 2016 (and some won't) should be tarred and feathered.

i don't totally agree with the bolded statement. yes, no doubt, griffey is great...hall of fame player and he will get in. i wouldn't have a problem with someone or a few people not voting for them due to the fact that they know he gets in. with a limit of 10 people that can be voted for, i think a vote for a fringe guy would be much more valuable than a guy that will get in no matter what.

I'd personally vote for the "PED" guys for a whole host of reasons I don't feel like enumerating. BUT I completely understand the argument to leave them all out and don't begrudge people that.

What I don't get is why Roger Clemens got more votes than Bonds (again, I understand leaving them both out). I saw an article that one voter left out Bonds but voted for Mark McGwire and Clemens! How does one justify that?

(01-06-2015 04:44 PM)NTTHOR Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 04:10 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Ken Griffey, Jr., in his prime (which sadly was relatively short), was one of the 10-15 greatest players of all time IMO.

5 tool player. Was nothing short of incredible. Never, ever mentioned in the steroid talk although he played in that era.

Whoever doesn't vote for him in 2016 (and some won't) should be tarred and feathered.

i don't totally agree with the bolded statement. yes, no doubt, griffey is great...hall of fame player and he will get in. i wouldn't have a problem with someone or a few people not voting for them due to the fact that they know he gets in. with a limit of 10 people that can be voted for, i think a vote for a fringe guy would be much more valuable than a guy that will get in no matter what.

Vote for the best 10. No matter what, and I don't care who is on the ballot or the voter's mindset, there will not be 10 players better than Ken Griffey on there.

(01-06-2015 04:55 PM)ODU06 Wrote:  I'd personally vote for the "PED" guys for a whole host of reasons I don't feel like enumerating. BUT I completely understand the argument to leave them all out and don't begrudge people that.

What I don't get is why Roger Clemens got more votes than Bonds (again, I understand leaving them both out). I saw an article that one voter left out Bonds but voted for Mark McGwire and Clemens! How does one justify that?

Bonds' physical change was so blatantly obvious. Giant head, all of a sudden looks like a bodybuilder.

May have something to do with it. The fact that is numbers were so clownishly ridiculous also might....I think folks resent him for "beating" Maris, McGwire, etc.

Clemens probably did it simply so he could play longer.

Either way, I wouldn't vote for any of them.

(01-06-2015 05:01 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 04:55 PM)ODU06 Wrote:  I'd personally vote for the "PED" guys for a whole host of reasons I don't feel like enumerating. BUT I completely understand the argument to leave them all out and don't begrudge people that.

What I don't get is why Roger Clemens got more votes than Bonds (again, I understand leaving them both out). I saw an article that one voter left out Bonds but voted for Mark McGwire and Clemens! How does one justify that?

Bonds' physical change was so blatantly obvious. Giant head, all of a sudden looks like a bodybuilder.

May have something to do with it. The fact that is numbers were so clownishly ridiculous also might....I think folks resent him for "beating" Maris, McGwire, etc.

Clemens probably did it simply so he could play longer.

Either way, I wouldn't vote for any of them.

Where do you draw the line on who's dirty and who isn't? Are rumors enough to keep them out?

(01-06-2015 04:44 PM)NTTHOR Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 04:10 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Ken Griffey, Jr., in his prime (which sadly was relatively short), was one of the 10-15 greatest players of all time IMO.

5 tool player. Was nothing short of incredible. Never, ever mentioned in the steroid talk although he played in that era.

Whoever doesn't vote for him in 2016 (and some won't) should be tarred and feathered.

i don't totally agree with the bolded statement. yes, no doubt, griffey is great...hall of fame player and he will get in. i wouldn't have a problem with someone or a few people not voting for them due to the fact that they know he gets in. with a limit of 10 people that can be voted for, i think a vote for a fringe guy would be much more valuable than a guy that will get in no matter what.

sportswriters that hold this in the highest regard (ethics) would intentionally do this???????

are you serious??? not only would that require collusion (to have an ounce of merit for doing something so stupid), but would boot them out of the voting process if anyone thought there was any inkling of tinkering....

grab about 20 brews and slam 'em down.....you will be better off at that point....

(01-06-2015 04:55 PM)ODU06 Wrote:  I'd personally vote for the "PED" guys for a whole host of reasons I don't feel like enumerating. BUT I completely understand the argument to leave them all out and don't begrudge people that.

What I don't get is why Roger Clemens got more votes than Bonds (again, I understand leaving them both out). I saw an article that one voter left out Bonds but voted for Mark McGwire and Clemens! How does one justify that?

(twiddling thumbs).....they are people that vote???? if they were machines, well....that would rule out bias....

(01-06-2015 07:16 PM)USMSTUD Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 05:01 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 04:55 PM)ODU06 Wrote:  I'd personally vote for the "PED" guys for a whole host of reasons I don't feel like enumerating. BUT I completely understand the argument to leave them all out and don't begrudge people that.

What I don't get is why Roger Clemens got more votes than Bonds (again, I understand leaving them both out). I saw an article that one voter left out Bonds but voted for Mark McGwire and Clemens! How does one justify that?

Bonds' physical change was so blatantly obvious. Giant head, all of a sudden looks like a bodybuilder.

May have something to do with it. The fact that is numbers were so clownishly ridiculous also might....I think folks resent him for "beating" Maris, McGwire, etc.

Clemens probably did it simply so he could play longer.

Either way, I wouldn't vote for any of them.

Where do you draw the line on who's dirty and who isn't? Are rumors enough to keep them out?

the eye test pretty much sums it up for that era.....most of the voters do have a clue....

(01-06-2015 04:55 PM)ODU06 Wrote:  I'd personally vote for the "PED" guys for a whole host of reasons I don't feel like enumerating. BUT I completely understand the argument to leave them all out and don't begrudge people that.

What I don't get is why Roger Clemens got more votes than Bonds (again, I understand leaving them both out). I saw an article that one voter left out Bonds but voted for Mark McGwire and Clemens! How does one justify that?

Agreed that Clemens, Bonds, and McGwire are all in the same category and they should all receive approval or disapproval in equal measure.

(01-06-2015 07:16 PM)USMSTUD Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 05:01 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 04:55 PM)ODU06 Wrote:  I'd personally vote for the "PED" guys for a whole host of reasons I don't feel like enumerating. BUT I completely understand the argument to leave them all out and don't begrudge people that.

What I don't get is why Roger Clemens got more votes than Bonds (again, I understand leaving them both out). I saw an article that one voter left out Bonds but voted for Mark McGwire and Clemens! How does one justify that?

Bonds' physical change was so blatantly obvious. Giant head, all of a sudden looks like a bodybuilder.

May have something to do with it. The fact that is numbers were so clownishly ridiculous also might....I think folks resent him for "beating" Maris, McGwire, etc.

Clemens probably did it simply so he could play longer.

Either way, I wouldn't vote for any of them.

Where do you draw the line on who's dirty and who isn't? Are rumors enough to keep them out?

I don't believe rumors are enough, generally speaking.

Hell, anyone could be like (and people were): "Frank Thomas must be on steroids because he's jacked."

That's technically a rumor. But the voters didn't and shouldn't have cared.

Now if you have 5 or 6 dudes coming forward saying "yeah, me and this guy used to shoot up in the bathroom before games all the time," then that's quite a different situation.