NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 04:24 PM) No, but that's because you don't want it to be clear. EVERYONE accepts that "beyond a reasonable doubt" means more than 50%, because there is a competing standard that clearly implies anything more than 50%, which is a weaker standard. That at least narrows the field, and the strength of the language suggests that it should be significantly higher than 50%. Yes, it is still uncomfortably vague, and that's something that gets discussed by scholars -- should there be an explicit threshold?, etc. But that's a lot more direction than absolutely none. And it still leaves the question of what YOU think "strong" evidence means. If you were the voter, what would your standard be? You suggest above that some evidence shouldn't be considered ("...I couldn't justify using it against him"). What would you not consider? The problem with not having any notion of a standard, and just going "by situation", is that a person is free to define it up or down depending on the individual being considered. It would clearly be unacceptable if juries across the US convicted blacks at a higher rate than whites in cases with exactly the same evidence. Yet, if we accept your position, there would be no problem with that, since the jurors can determine "beyond a reasonable doubt" however they see fit on a case-by-case basis. Similarly (though obviously much less important), we don't want voters for the Hall determining that there's "strong" evidence against the guy who was a jerk to the press while saying the evidence against another guy, who was real nice to his mother, wasn't really "strong", if there are only trivial differences in the facts. That's even ignoring whether or not it's relevant, and what happens when you find out a guy who's already enshrined was a user. And if it's fair to exclude the people who just happened to have the popular supplier, while putting in dozens who used the more low-key guy. I'm done. I'm just tired of the idea that by selectively picking guys who we really think maybe probably didn't use, we'll get the 'right' guys in, and get a true picture of the era. It's like we want to portray the last 15 years like we wish it had been. We don't know, we'll never know, the whole period and all its numbers are tainted. To reject a guy because someone thinks he was 25% likely to have used while accepting a guy who was only 10% likely to have used seems just ridiculously arbitrary. But hey, whatever. I can't say I have much respect for the HOF to lose. I really do understand what you are trying to say. I just think you are trying to apply a level of precision that is not possible, but I feel that a judgement can still be made based on less numeric and more subjective analysis. That's why there are hundreds of voters for the Hall, not 5 or 6. No "test" will be 100% for all players - some will require a grey-area approach and analysis, no matter how much information you gather. But that shouldn't stop them from trying to be as fair as possible. And I don't think its fair at all to just let everyone in because "we can't know for sure", or just not let anyone in for the same reason. That is, in my view, a total cop-out.

QUOTE(G&T @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 04:26 PM) Selig is adopting all the recommendations. Really? Wow. I haven't read them yet, anyone know off hand what the big ones are?

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 04:14 PM) Any thoughts on Today's Iowa debate? Didn't hear anything that influences me to change my vote. I am at work, couldn't watch. I'll download and watch the clips from the web tonight. Anything worth noting?

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Dec 12, 2007 -> 05:46 PM) Response from Obama Campaign... http://thepage.time.com/obama-campaign-response-to-shaheen/ The Clinton staffer who said it has left the campaign. Its funny, we've all been assuming that because of the Clinton machine, and the huge amounts of fundraising, that their campaign was a formidable force, one that could do all sorts of damage to other candidates. But with this bad quote-firing pattern repeating over and over, and their continuing collapse in the polls, one has to ask... are they maybe not all that good? Maybe the Clinton campaign is really not all that strong. Maybe there is no nuke that will be dropped prior to the caucus.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 04:14 PM) Why are the players the one's taking such a huge hit here? Why not the rest of the baseball industry? Why so harsh to judge the players, and no one else? Maybe because Jerry Reinsdorff wasn't injecting himself with steroids. Obviously, most of us blame the people actually cheating and committing crimes. I am sure that others deserve blame too, for letting it happen. But clearly the larger burden of guilt lies with the actors, not the bystanders.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 04:05 PM) Well I will say this much, for those who expected this to be watered down, they sure were proved wrong. Now the really interesting part becomes will Seling grow a pair and punish people for their sins or not? Much as I'd like to see punishments doled out, I think I'd be even happier if this meant: --Tougher, truly random, independent testing --Investment in technology to test for HGH without a blood sample --An investigative office in MLB that constantly researches what drugs are used, and updates testing to keep up That would be the best use of this.

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 03:35 PM) This whole thing is a fluff piece IMHO that will not be used to do anything other then an MLB CYA with Congress and a tool to try and get as much testing through the MLBPA as possible. If the end result is stronger testing, then it was a success.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 03:06 PM) Courts have standards which mean something to individual jurors. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" means, to me, something like 90%. Moreover, I believe beliefs about beliefs exist and are meaningful. While someone else may have a different threshold for "beyond a reasonable doubt", it seems clear that it must at least be strictly greater than 50% -- especially considering that other courts have a "preponderance of the evidence" standard, which is universally considered to be a weaker standard, and which seems to clearly declare a 50% standard. It is a standard on individual jurors' subjective beliefs, but still a standard -- unlike saying there must be "strong" evidence. You are really nitpicking something that is just not that precise - and its that way by design. "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not a numerical value. You yourself may assign one - but that is just you. I simply see no possible way to assign a percentage to these standards. It makes no sense to me. Let's go by situation instead... Bonds: admitted use, people claim to have sold him stuff, people have seen him use it, all kinds of bizarre medical records, added to the circumstantial stuff like his freakish physical development and the typical side effects... that to me is enough STRONG evidence to feel confident he did it. Therefore, I wouldn't vote him in. Giambi is at a similar level. Sosa: meets all the circumstantial criteria for it, but, there is literally no HARD evidence of him doing so. That is not a STRONG pool of evidence. Therefore, even though I suspect he did it, I couldn't justify using it against him. Therefore, I might vote him in, if everything else warrants it. McGuire: here is where it gets in that grey area. He meets some of the circumstantial criteria. The biggest evidence though, from what I understand, is his no-comment to Congress (there may be more, that's all I am aware of). That alone is SOME evidence, I am not sure I'd call it an amalgam of STRONG evidence. I'm on the fence. I'd want to know more before deciding. Is that a little more clear?

QUOTE(daa84 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 03:08 PM) frank thomas's odds of being elected to the hall of fame just went up alot imo.... I think he was going in anyway, but yeah, I'd say his shot at first ballot went up.

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 02:51 PM) Well, you dictate that any missed test is considered a positive. So you visit a player and ask him to come to a hospital lab that's affiliated with the testing authority, If he refuses, that's 50 days (or more, depending what new punishment is negotiated). I think it's ridiculous that the sports leagues run their own drug testing programs. I am saying you HAVE to do a blood test to show HGH. Missed test or not. And no sport currently allows for that. That will be a tough sell.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 02:34 PM) Sorry, but saying there has to be "strong" evidence, then saying that "strong" can mean whatever you want it to mean, is to demand an empty standard. Of course each case is different. But the standard used to judge each case should be the same, and shouldn't be hopelessly vague, at least in the mind of a voter. You are looking for a standard that cannot exist. Which I understand, you are probably trying to say means that no standard can be enforced. I disagree. Courts decide to indict or convict all the time on an amalgam of "strong" evidence. Why is that not a reasonable standard for the theoretical me (the one that votes for the HOF) to use to decide on their highly subjective "character"?

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 02:36 PM) Sorry if I missed this, but I think that the most important thing to come out of this report (if MLB and MLBPA implement it) is an independent testing authority. If they have the right to randomly test at any time of the year and do it, it will be a great benefit, and the benefit may leak into other USA based sports, such as football. I sincerely hope that this gets done without Congress having to step in again. Whether Don Fehr will allow it, I don't know. I agree that would be good, but, still leaves the HGH hole. Need to come up with a plan on how to address that. Still requires a blood test, I think.

QUOTE(daa84 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 02:23 PM) mods, in the interest of reporting fact and to clear up any confusion regarding this....can we delete the posts that had the lists from deadspin and the other "sources" as they are not accurate and include players who have not been mentioned in the report People post rumors in here all the time. Why remove those in particular, especially since many news sites had the very same B.S. list?

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 01:55 PM) I KNOW IT'S SUBJECTIVE. But it is dishonest to say that voters should do something, then refer all clarifying questions to the notion that it's subjective, so one really can't say anything about what they should do. If one believes that all voters should exclude those who they strongly believe used steroids, it still remains to clarify what "strongly" means. (And, yes, these are my words.) If you have absolutely no opinion on that, it means that you are equally happy with someone who'll exclude those with a .0000000000000001% chance of having used (which would surely encompass everyone playing today) and someone who'll exclude those only those with a 99.99999999999999999% chance of having used (which might include Giambi, but basically noone else -- sorry, but certainty in anything is a farce). If that's true, it makes the original statement about what voters should do essentially meaningless. Again, I am talking about personally held, SUBJECTIVE probabilities. I simply cannot see assigning a percentage value. If it were me voting, if there was an amalgam of strong evidence - like there appears to be for Clemens and some others in the Mitchell report, for example - that to me would be enough to not vote him in. Bonds and others have very strong cases against them. Some guys though, its a weaker case. I strongly suspect Sosa, but I have seen zero actual evidence of anything. So I think I'd have to try to keep that suspicion out of my judgement as a voter. Now, if we are talking court of law here, and possible prosecution, then the bar would need to be higher. Is that more what you are looking for? I can't see getting any more precise than that.

QUOTE(G&T @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 02:17 PM) Forgoing discipline. I knew it. Huh?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 01:55 PM) Reynolds says 39 of the 75 players on that list we saw earlier are not true. Figures. It sure did seem like too obvious a list. Like, get a bunch of baseball-knowledgeable people in a room, and come up with a list of who is likely to be on it. Some are probably true, like the ones that have had admitted it (Bonds, Giambi) or practically so (McGuire).

QUOTE(Hatchetman @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 01:47 PM) No, he knew. Just like I knew, and anyone with half a brain knew. How did those trials go in Salem?

QUOTE(iamshack @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 01:42 PM) Ok, so I knew Giambi, Sosa, McGuire, and many other players were doing roids. But the owners of the teams they played for had no idea? Oh and by the way... you didn't KNOW they were doing them. At least not immediately. You SUSPECTED.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 01:42 PM) Ok, so I knew Giambi, Sosa, McGuire, and many other players were doing roids. But the owners of the teams they played for had no idea? For the third time... as I have posted, there are exceptions. Those are superstar players. Since its obvious you are just going to go to the extremes on this, missing the general point, there isn't much purpose discussing it with you further.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 01:33 PM) You know very well that one standard looked at by voters is, How does X compare to similar players already in the Hall? As such, I think it very much affects the legitimacy. And as I said to Balta, beliefs are subjective, including beliefs about probabilities. Every voter will have to answer the question I asked, if they take the task seriously and believe they should exclude steroid users. It's not honest to wave it away just because it involves numbers. Except that baseball's HOF has that major difference with other sports': the "character clause". Was this person good for the game? Did they respect it? Those are written (in similar words, I don't know them exactly) as the conditions for entry. And there is nothing objective about those points. They are entirely subjective.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 01:37 PM) And you don't think the manager talks to the GM, who then talks to the owner? I understand what you're saying- that most owners don't interact personally much with their players. But their managers do. And where do you think GM's go for advice on a player they have, or wish to acquire? And where do you think the GM's then go to get permission to spend the money to acquire a player or to re-sign a player? To the owner. I think you're underestimating the amount of involvement alot of these owners have with their teams, or perhaps how much knowledge they have of their own players. I think you are overestimating the relationship. Owners dictate what money to spend, how much, and when - but I'd bet they only rarely talk to the player-related staff about specific players on a casual, high-level basis most of the time. On occasion, maybe, they might talk about some specific star player, if its relevant.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 01:33 PM) So you're going to argue George Steinbrenner had no idea that Jason Giambi was a steroid user when he signed him? The Cubs brass had no idea Sammy Sosa was using them? The Cardinals no clue with McGuire, who openly displayed creatine in his locker? Many of these players had the drugs DELIVERED to THE CLUBHOUSE! You're going to say these owners had no idea? Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that every owner was keeping tabs on every one of his players. But they are usually astute businessmen for a reason. They keep tabs on their investments and their fingers on everything. Note what I actually said - most owners aren't familiar with most of the day-to-day of their players. And that is true. But there are cetainly exceptions. Yes, I am sure that some teams like Texas signing Sosa knew what they were getting. But depending on your take on the words "Cubs brass", they may not have known what Sammy was doing. And if they suspected, I'd bet that the further away from the baseball field they were on the org chart, the less they wanted to know.

QUOTE(daa84 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 01:30 PM) you dont hand out millions of dollars without finding out alot about players...including what their training is like...lets face it...everyone knew...it was likely one of those "do i really know" type things....the owners may have never actually seen the players taking roids, but they knew....its like...ive never seen britney spears having sex...but i know shes a slut I think you are confusing owners with GM's and managers. I'd bet the GM/manager types knew plenty. A lot of owners though, I'd bet, just weren't that tight with how their players behaved.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 01:16 PM) Well, you guys are missing the boat here. To claim that these owners didn't know exactly what was going on with the vast majority of these players is nonsense. Many of these owners signed players knowing fully well that the player was using steroids, which led to their improvement in performance. For the owners to then go back and try to void a contract would be absolute horsesh*t. It can be argued that it's the owners who benefitted the most from the widespread steroid use by players. Many of these contracts contain clauses which can void the contract if the player, for instance, engages in some sort of dangerous off-field activity (riding motorcycles) without the team's consent. I'm sure the Yankees attempted to form an argument that steroid use by Giambi equated to such, but ultimately they decided not to pursue such an argument. However, this also happened to coincide with Jason's productive return to the field. I think you are way off on this. Most owners don't know that much detail of the day to day lives of their players, I'd bet. They probably all had the GENERAL idea that they were out there and prevalent - but I doubt they had much info about specific players.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 01:08 PM) But then more data emerges saying that player X, who was voted in already, used steroids. Can't take him out, and now how do you justify the rest not being in? What is the threshold level of belief to justify excluding someone, anyway? Do you not vote for someone because you believe there is a 75% chance he used? 50%? 25%? 5%? Nothing in the HOF voting is precise. Its entirely subjective (though yes, stats are involved). This is just more subjective information to consider. As for guys they found about after the fact... it is what it is. Nothing can be done, I suppose. Doesn't change the legitimacy of the process in place.