Are Hall of fame voters basing their voting on suspicion of steroids ruining the intergrity of the HOF vote?

Question

Baseball writers are debating whether players like Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds from the steriod era should or should not be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame. If writers are not voting for a player without proof of guilt is that decision undermining the spirit of the Hall of Fame vote. Should writers have the discretionary power to not vote a player in becuase they don't like them based on what they may have done or that they just don't like them?

Answer 1

I think that it should only be based on stats and what is PROVEN, not all this crap about suspected steiroid use. Which means Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire should definately be voted in. Sammy Sosa should be as well because the only thing proven against him was the corked bat. I mean how can guys with over 600 home runs not be in the hall of fame???

Answer 2

Yep pot calling kettle black. They are hof voters that should be voting based off of stats only. They are not judges, juries, nor doctors for allegations. They have a job to do and that is to decide whether or not the players on field performance warrants being in the hall of fame or not. Let the commish, doctors, lawyers and others decide if they are eligible to be voted on or not.

Answer 3

Yes they are or Mark McGwire would have made it on the first ballot. Sammy Sosa and Barry Bonds may never make it.

Answer 4

Part of the criteria to get into the HOF is a players integrity. Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripkin were both voted not just for their stats but also for their outstanding integrity.

But I noticed players like Albert Belle, Jose Canseco & Ken Caminiti got very very few votes. They had decent stats, but very low integrity. Integrity does play sway voters to some degree.

It's just about if they took them or not. It's how they present themselves and their image on the game of baseball.

Answer 5

Voting should never be made on suspicion alone. Facts!