15 minutes of fame

[Chris]

There's definitely something to be said about a site with the lead headline of Meet the Catman

[Chris]

According to a story in the San Diego Union-Tribune, Gwynn, informed of Ladewski's decision, said, "I want him to vote his conscience. I want him to vote how he feels. I don't want anybody trying to sing my praises. If he feels like I'm worthy enough, then hey. ... If he doesn't, for whatever reason, then don't."

 

Link

[Soriano12]

If anyone thinks that Ripken or Gwynn possibly did roids, they are a freakin dumbass.

 

I think sometimes we don't really know who the saints are who who the sinners are.

 

When you have one guy who looks like he never worked out in his entire life, and another who never had a major injury in his entire career, odds are they never used.

[CuseCubFan69]

If anyone thinks that Ripken or Gwynn possibly did roids, they are a freakin dumbass.

 

I think sometimes we don't really know who the saints are who who the sinners are.

 

When you have one guy who looks like he never worked out in his entire life, and another who never had a major injury in his entire career, odds are they never used.

 

Steroids, maybe not. Antphetamines or the like who really knows.

 

Of course in Gwynns case it may have been twinkees.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

His blank ballot is going to hurt other hopefuls such as Dawson, Rice, Smith, or Blyleven more than it will Cal or Gwynn.

 

While he may not have voted for those guys either way, his form of protest has more damage to those players to whom every vote counts.

 

While Ripken and Gwynn are no doubt HOFers, there's been many no-doubt HOFers that weren't unanimous. I think we should be angrier at whoever left Babe Ruth or Hank Aaron or Ted Williams off their ballots than the people who don't vote Ripken or Gwynn on the first time.

[Chris]

His blank ballot is going to hurt other hopefuls such as Dawson, Rice, Smith, or Blyleven more than it will Cal or Gwynn.

 

Good point. So by directly or indirectly punishing players who played in the steroid era he also is punishing all players who did not play in that era. Interesting.

[Rob]

Better one year too late than one year too soon, I say.

 

I find it quite ironic that his parting line is the exact opposite of what Branch Rickey (a sure baseball genius) used to say. It's like he's trying to enforce that he's a dumbass.

[USSoccer]

Nothing like appointing yourself the guardian of all things pure. This guy is a clown, as most HOF voters are.

 

I'm sick of the incessant moralizing and romanticising of baseball.

[OleMissCub]

While Ripken and Gwynn are no doubt HOFers, there's been many no-doubt HOFers that weren't unanimous. I think we should be angrier at whoever left Babe Ruth or Hank Aaron or Ted Williams off their ballots than the people who don't vote Ripken or Gwynn on the first time.

 

I have to think that the first class of HOF'ers doesn't count in that unanimous voting thing. I mean, who WOULDN'T vote for Ruth, Cobb, Mathewson, Wagner, or Walter Johnson??

[USSoccer]

While Ripken and Gwynn are no doubt HOFers, there's been many no-doubt HOFers that weren't unanimous. I think we should be angrier at whoever left Babe Ruth or Hank Aaron or Ted Williams off their ballots than the people who don't vote Ripken or Gwynn on the first time.

 

I have to think that the first class of HOF'ers doesn't count in that unanimous voting thing. I mean, who WOULDN'T vote for Ruth, Cobb, Mathewson, Wagner, or Walter Johnson??

 

Wasn't there some idiot who refused to vote for anyone on the first ballot?

[swordsman]

 

I'm sick of the incessant moralizing and romanticising of baseball.

 

I'm not sure this counts as that. If he were against them because they beat their wives or stepped on puppies or something that would be one thing. Not voting because you aren't sure about them actually cheating on the field of play (regardles of how unlikely that is given the players) hardly counts as "moralizing and romanticising" baseball.

[CuseCubFan69]

While Ripken and Gwynn are no doubt HOFers, there's been many no-doubt HOFers that weren't unanimous. I think we should be angrier at whoever left Babe Ruth or Hank Aaron or Ted Williams off their ballots than the people who don't vote Ripken or Gwynn on the first time.

 

I have to think that the first class of HOF'ers doesn't count in that unanimous voting thing. I mean, who WOULDN'T vote for Ruth, Cobb, Mathewson, Wagner, or Walter Johnson??

 

Wasn't there some idiot who refused to vote for anyone on the first ballot?

 

Clarence Thomas?

[USSoccer]

 

I'm sick of the incessant moralizing and romanticising of baseball.

 

I'm not sure this counts as that. If he were against them because they beat their wives or stepped on puppies or something that would be one thing. Not voting because you aren't sure about them actually cheating on the field of play (regardles of how unlikely that is given the players) hardly counts as "moralizing and romanticising" baseball.

 

Isn't his whole thing that he doesn't know who used and who didn't, so he's not voting for anyone because if they used they cheated, and that is a stain on the game?

 

I can't imagine his logic doesn't lead him there, and that's stupid. As has been said tons of times before, the history of baseball is rife with cheating, and the HOF is full of guys who openly cheated. But they're romanticised, and guys who may (or may not) have used PED's are damned because sportswriters now grew up with a silly romantic notion of baseball, and hate the fact that suspected cheaters broke the hallowed, sacred records they grew up revering.

[swordsman]

 

I'm sick of the incessant moralizing and romanticising of baseball.

 

I'm not sure this counts as that. If he were against them because they beat their wives or stepped on puppies or something that would be one thing. Not voting because you aren't sure about them actually cheating on the field of play (regardles of how unlikely that is given the players) hardly counts as "moralizing and romanticising" baseball.

 

Isn't his whole thing that he doesn't know who used and who didn't, so he's not voting for anyone because if they used they cheated, and that is a stain on the game?

 

I can't imagine his logic doesn't lead him there, and that's stupid. As has been said tons of times before, the history of baseball is rife with cheating, and the HOF is full of guys who openly cheated. But they're romanticised, and guys who may (or may not) have used PED's are damned because sportswriters now grew up with a silly romantic notion of baseball, and hate the fact that suspected cheaters broke the hallowed, sacred records they grew up revering.

 

Throw the know cheaters out, don't add new cheaters in. I don't see how discouraging cheating "romanticizes" the sport.

[cubweiser03]

While Ripken and Gwynn are no doubt HOFers, there's been many no-doubt HOFers that weren't unanimous. I think we should be angrier at whoever left Babe Ruth or Hank Aaron or Ted Williams off their ballots than the people who don't vote Ripken or Gwynn on the first time.

 

I have to think that the first class of HOF'ers doesn't count in that unanimous voting thing. I mean, who WOULDN'T vote for Ruth, Cobb, Mathewson, Wagner, or Walter Johnson??

 

Wasn't there some idiot who refused to vote for anyone on the first ballot?

 

Yeah that fat ass from philadelphia. he was on the Sports Reporters occasionally. He thinks he's really sweet doing it.

[USSoccer]

 

I'm sick of the incessant moralizing and romanticising of baseball.

 

I'm not sure this counts as that. If he were against them because they beat their wives or stepped on puppies or something that would be one thing. Not voting because you aren't sure about them actually cheating on the field of play (regardles of how unlikely that is given the players) hardly counts as "moralizing and romanticising" baseball.

 

Isn't his whole thing that he doesn't know who used and who didn't, so he's not voting for anyone because if they used they cheated, and that is a stain on the game?

 

I can't imagine his logic doesn't lead him there, and that's stupid. As has been said tons of times before, the history of baseball is rife with cheating, and the HOF is full of guys who openly cheated. But they're romanticised, and guys who may (or may not) have used PED's are damned because sportswriters now grew up with a silly romantic notion of baseball, and hate the fact that suspected cheaters broke the hallowed, sacred records they grew up revering.

 

Throw the know cheaters out, don't add new cheaters in. I don't see how discouraging cheating "romanticizes" the sport.

 

The problem is that the old cheaters are thought of as colorful. That's hyporcitical.

[swordsman]

 

I'm sick of the incessant moralizing and romanticising of baseball.

 

I'm not sure this counts as that. If he were against them because they beat their wives or stepped on puppies or something that would be one thing. Not voting because you aren't sure about them actually cheating on the field of play (regardles of how unlikely that is given the players) hardly counts as "moralizing and romanticising" baseball.

 

Isn't his whole thing that he doesn't know who used and who didn't, so he's not voting for anyone because if they used they cheated, and that is a stain on the game?

 

I can't imagine his logic doesn't lead him there, and that's stupid. As has been said tons of times before, the history of baseball is rife with cheating, and the HOF is full of guys who openly cheated. But they're romanticised, and guys who may (or may not) have used PED's are damned because sportswriters now grew up with a silly romantic notion of baseball, and hate the fact that suspected cheaters broke the hallowed, sacred records they grew up revering.

 

Throw the know cheaters out, don't add new cheaters in. I don't see how discouraging cheating "romanticizes" the sport.

 

The problem is that the old cheaters are thought of as colorful. That's hyporcitical.

 

I agree, that's why admitted or proven cheaters should not be in the hall of fame or in the record books. I have no problem with that.

[bhogg]

What a dumbass.

 

If he were standing in my living room, I'd kick him in the jimmy.

[oldstyle81]

eh who cares, he will still get in on his first ballot

[bhogg]

maybe this guy will be a contributing factor in restructuring how the HoF is determined.

 

The current set up is a complete joke.

[Dr. Cub]

 

I'm sick of the incessant moralizing and romanticising of baseball.

 

I'm not sure this counts as that. If he were against them because they beat their wives or stepped on puppies or something that would be one thing. Not voting because you aren't sure about them actually cheating on the field of play (regardles of how unlikely that is given the players) hardly counts as "moralizing and romanticising" baseball.

 

Isn't his whole thing that he doesn't know who used and who didn't, so he's not voting for anyone because if they used they cheated, and that is a stain on the game?

 

I can't imagine his logic doesn't lead him there, and that's stupid. As has been said tons of times before, the history of baseball is rife with cheating, and the HOF is full of guys who openly cheated. But they're romanticised, and guys who may (or may not) have used PED's are damned because sportswriters now grew up with a silly romantic notion of baseball, and hate the fact that suspected cheaters broke the hallowed, sacred records they grew up revering.

 

Throw the know cheaters out, don't add new cheaters in. I don't see how discouraging cheating "romanticizes" the sport.

 

The problem is that the old cheaters are thought of as colorful. That's hyporcitical.

 

Exactly. I wonder if this tool voted for Perry?

[USSoccer]

Clowny McJournalist was on Mike & Mike on ESPN this morning. I heard a very small part, but he was babbling on how he needs to see the 100 names of players who tested positive, and then hear what they know before he can vote for anyone in the "Steroid Era".

 

Having defended the game of baseball ever so gallantly, he then mounted his shining, white steed, threw his head back gallantly and rode back to the Kingdom of Old-Tyme Baseball where he, HatGuy and Joe Morgan were to paint a mural depicting "Playing The Game The Right Way" on the ceiling of the castle.

[CuseCubFan69]

Clowny McJournalist was on Mike & Mike on ESPN this morning. I heard a very small part, but he was babbling on how he needs to see the 100 names of players who tested positive, and then hear what they know before he can vote for anyone in the "Steroid Era".

 

Having defended the game of baseball ever so gallantly, he then mounted his shining, white steed, threw his head back gallantly and rode back to the Kingdom of Old-Tyme Baseball where he, HatGuy and Joe Morgan were to paint a mural depicting "Playing The Game The Right Way" on the ceiling of the castle.

 

I have no problem with him wanting to find out the 100 names because I want to know too. When is the steroid era?

[USSoccer]

Clowny McJournalist was on Mike & Mike on ESPN this morning. I heard a very small part, but he was babbling on how he needs to see the 100 names of players who tested positive, and then hear what they know before he can vote for anyone in the "Steroid Era".

 

Having defended the game of baseball ever so gallantly, he then mounted his shining, white steed, threw his head back gallantly and rode back to the Kingdom of Old-Tyme Baseball where he, HatGuy and Joe Morgan were to paint a mural depicting "Playing The Game The Right Way" on the ceiling of the castle.

 

I have no problem with him wanting to find out the 100 names because I want to know too. When is the steroid era?

 

The steroid era is considered to be 1993-2004. The trouble with his logic is that baseball had no policy against PED's for that period. No policy means that you cannot hold a player accountable for what he might or might not have done. It's a stupid, moralizing witch hunt undertaken by people who grew up with the fairy tale notion of what baseball actually is. Those people are now sportswriters, and have taken it upon themselves to decide who and who is not a "cheater", using rumor, innuendo and their eyes to jump to conclusions that I'm sure are 90% incorrect.

 

Gaylord Perry? Oh, man, he was crafty. HOF for him. Mark McGwire? No way, man, he used a legal, over the counter supplement. Plus, he babbled and waffled in front of a grandstanding Congressional panel. Ship him to some island of misfit ballplayers where he can sit and think about the damage he caused to our sacred game, where no one prior to 1993 ever cheated or took anything to give themselves an edge.

[radarluv1]

the counter argument is that anabolic steroids taken illegally need not be expressly defined as illegal by MLB.

 

however, amphetamines are/were also illegal, and have been around along time too. undoubetdly significant numbers of HOFers from the 70s and 80s were taking those.