Your 2014 Hall Of Fame Ballot

[NYY #23]

Originally Posted by The Game

Jason & NYY you 2 dont trust anyone do you? Well I am against known or accused steroid users be the in the HOF knowing what we know now. But I seem to be in the minority on these boards. Glad the voters still think like I do. 5-10 years from now that might change, then I will be the one to complain about who got in.

Trust them to tell the truth about steroids - no. They are human, they make mistakes, and there is a lot of money at stake.

Your certainly entitled to your opinion, but the one thing that bothers me the most is accused. Whatever happened until innocent until proven guilty? A lot of the accusations are weak at best, but the damage is already done.

With that system we are rewarding the guys that beat the system and didn't get caught, or accused.

I don't like steroids, or PED use anymore than you. But I choose to judge players by the only criteria that is accurate, what they did on the field.

[Jason Moyer]

I'm pretty much beyond caring about a bunch of self-righteous writers who work in an archaic medium deciding that a few guys don't deserve plaques in some museum in a town whose place in baseball history bares as much resemblance to reality as the average person's perception of the PED era because they took some substances that were and are widely abused in baseball for 40-60 years, and would have been abused by players prior to that had something better at boosting testosterone levels than injecting themselves with goat semen existed at the time. About the only way I could care less about the hall of fame is if it were voted on by players (associations who give themselves awards are sooooo tacky) or the fans whose opinions are largely shaped by the misinformation MLB and the media have been feeding them for the past 10 years.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by NYY #23

T
Whatever happened until innocent until proven guilty? A lot of the accusations are weak at best, but the damage is already done.

Innocent until proven guilty is BS. Why lock someone away for 3 years until their trail if they might be innocent. It is guilty until proven innocent. It is not the state's job to prove guilt it is the defenses job to prove innocence. If you were in my house and something went missing it is your job to prove you didn't steal it not my job to prove that you did. I probably dropped it behind the couch but thats another story.

[BaseballMan]

I agree with Jason. Maybe they should take it away from writers and give it to retired players and personal. Any time you use the hof voting process as a personal vendetta like that guy did when he refuse to vote for Roberto Alomar cause of the spitting incident you lose respect for your vote. Two wrongs dont make a right and Alomar was already punished. The writers job is too choose the best players they think deserve to be in the hall and not play God.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by The Game

Innocent until proven guilty is BS. Why lock someone away for 3 years until their trail if they might be innocent. It is guilty until proven innocent. It is not the state's job to prove guilt it is the defenses job to prove innocence. If you were in my house and something went missing it is your job to prove you didn't steal it not my job to prove that you did. I probably dropped it behind the couch but thats another story.

You have to show evidence in order to keep someone locked away that long. Aaron Hernandez had a couple different hearings over the summer in which it was decided their was enough evidence to hold him.

We really cant have indicted murderers running around the country so in that aspect maybe it isnt exactly fair to the indicted. But if the evidence is there I will certainly take this over the alternative.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

I agree with Jason. Maybe they should take it away from writers and give it to retired players and personal. Any time you use the hof voting process as a personal vendetta like that guy did when he refuse to vote for Roberto Alomar cause of the spitting incident you lose respect for your vote. Two wrongs dont make a right and Alomar was already punished. The writers job is too choose the best players they think deserve to be in the hall and not play God.

How do we know players will vote any different? So Maddux, Hank Aaron, Glavine & Bobby Cox vote for Smoltz next year when the writers would have put Biggio in because he had no Astros to lobby for him?

JB that is still guilty until proven innocent.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by The Game

Thomas has 500 HR and a .300 avg that makes his the clearer choice for the HOF on 1st ballot. This is 1B not SS, defense does not matter as much for the HOF. Bagwell should have gone in last year, or before, with Biggio.
Thomas has no hint of being tied to steroids, Bagwell has.
Google "Frank Thomas Steroids", then Google "Jeff Bagwell Steroids". Thomas none that say he might have been on them on the 1st 2 pages. Bagwell 4 on page 1 alone.

Wait wut? You're using google to back up your claim? Nobody ever writes anything factually incorrect on the internets amiright? It's one of the biggest rumour mongering mills out there. I don't have a clue if either player was using, but I do know I wouldn't count on google to help me get my facts straight.

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by The Game

How do we know players will vote any different? So Maddux, Hank Aaron, Glavine & Bobby Cox vote for Smoltz next year when the writers would have put Biggio in because he had no Astros to lobby for him?

JB that is still guilty until proven innocent.

You wouldnt have all braves voting and you could rotate the voters each year. I dont think players would vote for players just because they were teammates at one time. Anyway i would trust them more than i do the writers at this point.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

You wouldnt have all braves voting and you could rotate the voters each year. I dont think players would vote for players just because they were teammates at one time. Anyway i would trust them more than i do the writers at this point.

How do you think Santo got in? Had Dawson & Sandberg not gone in when they did Santo would not be in the Hall today. 5 at least HOF Cubs voting for him. How would voting for newley retired player be different then the Veterans Committee?

AJ I didn't say the sites are accurate that is not for me to decide but Bagwell is one of the more prominent players to have been suspected who has not been confirmed. Sosa has had less discussion about being on steroids but is there any doubt concerning him?

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally Posted by The Game

Innocent until proven guilty is BS. Why lock someone away for 3 years until their trail if they might be innocent. It is guilty until proven innocent. It is not the state's job to prove guilt it is the defenses job to prove innocence. If you were in my house and something went missing it is your job to prove you didn't steal it not my job to prove that you did. I probably dropped it behind the couch but thats another story.

95% of what you post is meaningless filler. But I simply can't let this latest post go without comment.

Every single statement in what you wrote is incorrect. Your grasp of the legal system in every western democracy is completely non existent based on what you wrote.

The concept of burden of proof which the entire legal system for the last 1000 years is based.
"emper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit" is the Latin term you will find in every legal textbook used in every legal classroom
Meaning, the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.

In every court of law, both legal and civil, it is up to the state, prosecution or the plaintiff to prove their class.

The prosecution must prove their class beyond all reasonable doubt and in civil court the plaintiff has to prove their grievance.

The defense simply has to prove reasonable doubt.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by rudel.dietrich

95% of what you post is meaningless filler. But I simply can't let this latest post go without comment.

Every single statement in what you wrote is incorrect. Your grasp of the legal system in every western democracy is completely non existent based on what you wrote.

The concept of burden of proof which the entire legal system for the last 1000 years is based.
"emper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit" is the Latin term you will find in every legal textbook used in every legal classroom
Meaning, the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.

In every court of law, both legal and civil, it is up to the state, prosecution or the plaintiff to prove their class.

The prosecution must prove their class beyond all reasonable doubt and in civil court the plaintiff has to prove their grievance.

The defense simply has to prove reasonable doubt.

How many times have you gone through the American legal system? It might be different where you live. This is why 48% of AA's have been arrested before age 23, 38% of whites. Many of the AA's that go to jail have to rely on a public defender which has 10-20+ concurrent cases and is overburdened with trying to prove the accused innocence or put reasonable doubt into the minds of the judge or jury.
How many people even after being proved innocent and still considered to be guilty in the public court of opinion. I can think of 3 major ones.

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by The Game

How many times have you gone through the American legal system? It might be different where you live. This is why 48% of AA's have been arrested before age 23, 38% of whites. Many of the AA's that go to jail have to rely on a public defender which has 10-20+ concurrent cases and is overburdened with trying to prove the accused innocence or put reasonable doubt into the minds of the judge or jury.
How many people even after being proved innocent and still considered to be guilty in the public court of opinion. I can think of 3 major ones.

What you, I or the public opinion court have to say about a person's guilt or innocence has no say on the verdict. A person is innocent until proven guilty and rightfully so. I think this is one of the few things i can remember from school.