Quote:
Originally Posted by Logan
How about using your judgment and deciding who you feel deserves to be in there, which is the exact same thing done in every other voting situation for players who played before this era?
"Deserves" can mean whatever it wants to the voter...you could think Bonds deserves to get in based on how he performed before it was most likely that he began using steroids, and that's fine by me. You could think any player doesn't deserve to be in there even if it was (hypothetically) proven that they were only linked to steroids during the last year of their career and he was 100% clean for the rest of it, on a morals/integrity ground. Fine by me.
Not voting for an entire era of players based on nothing but the time in which they played baseball is not judgmental. It's a straight disqualification, which is ironic because one of the few things the HOF criteria actually states is some qualification scenarios and all of these players have passed that test.
|
The problem is most of the legit HOF candidates have big home run numbers and were implicated in some way in steroid use. It'd be pretty odd for a voter to vote for Sosa and not Bonds, for example. I think Frank Thomas is getting in though. But really even if he didn't, I have a minority view and am still cool with it, just because the HOF is defined by the very values of these voters, you can't separate the two. Nobody has an entitlement to the HOF. It only exists and people only get in because this group of people that cover the game think someone belongs, that's the definition of what this is.