Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

[l3ulvl]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

So we're saying Brian Mohler shouldn't get in because he once got caught with sandpaper taped to his thumb?

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

So we're saying Brian Mohler shouldn't get in because he once got caught with sandpaper taped to his thumb?

I think Brian Moehler basically sucking for his whole career is a better argument.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Cheating has been a part of baseball since the day the game was invented. There isn't one person I can think of that I wouldn't vote into the hall of game based on anything they have done off the field, save for a crime like murder.

That's fine for you, if it's that clear cut, but it's more of a gray area for most people. A lot of folks don't understand that the HOF states that character, integrity, and sportsmanship are essential qualities for induction. Most people use statistical criteria only, but take a look a the official HOF criteria--it explicitly mentions qualities that a major roid-head would obviously lack.

I know that I struggle with guys like Clemens and Bonds particularly because they were such supreme talents anyway. The problem is how we distinguish their stats w/o PEDs to their stats with PEDs. And, if the stats make a compelling case for induction, is the statistical argument stronger (pro) than the character issues are (con). Everyone answers that in a personal way imo.

The fact that "cheating has been a part of baseball since the day the game was invented" doesn't make it right. And we shouldn't have to accept that as baseball fans. I think a lot of fans are pleased with MLB taking action against Braun and A-Rod, though in A-Rod's case it might be a decade too late. It's a struggle that has no end, but it doesn't mean MLB should just say **** it and quit trying to clean up the sport because "there's always been cheating." If we can't get rid of it, maybe we can minimize it.

No one likes a cheater. Not a single person. And in instances where the cheaters have been caught in baseball (Black Sox, Pete Rose, recent PED violations, HOF voting backlash), punishment has been levied. Most people agree with that--though many want Pete Rose in anyway because he was such a friggin grinder.

[Sportsforever]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

That's fine for you, if it's that clear cut, but it's more of a gray area for most people. A lot of folks don't understand that the HOF states that character, integrity, and sportsmanship are essential qualities for induction. Most people use statistical criteria only, but take a look a the official HOF criteria--it explicitly mentions qualities that a major roid-head would obviously lack.

I know that I struggle with guys like Clemens and Bonds particularly because they were such supreme talents anyway. The problem is how we distinguish their stats w/o PEDs to their stats with PEDs. And, if the stats make a compelling case for induction, is the statistical argument stronger (pro) than the character issues are (con). Everyone answers that in a personal way imo.

The fact that "cheating has been a part of baseball since the day the game was invented" doesn't make it right. And we shouldn't have to accept that as baseball fans. I think a lot of fans are pleased with MLB taking action against Braun and A-Rod, though in A-Rod's case it might be a decade too late. It's a struggle that has no end, but it doesn't mean MLB should just say **** it and quit trying to clean up the sport because "there's always been cheating." If we can't get rid of it, maybe we can minimize it.

No one likes a cheater. Not a single person. And in instances where the cheaters have been caught in baseball (Black Sox, Pete Rose, recent PED violations, HOF voting backlash), punishment has been levied. Most people agree with that--though many want Pete Rose in anyway because he was such a friggin grinder.

I'm afraid you need to take off the idealistic glasses and lets look at these revered heroes who are already in the HOF through the prism of your "character, integrity, and sportsmanship" clause:

The majority of major league baseball players have NOT been good citizens and this goes back to the beginning of time (heck, today's players are saints in comparison). In the beginning they were drunks, gamblers, adulterers, murderers, cheaters, liars, and worse. Baseball players were the fringe of society who couldn't get a job, so they played baseball. Christy Mathewson was an exception, Ty Cobb was more of a norm.

You can scream about character, integrity, and sportsmanship all you want, but then let's be fair and just empty the HOF of all but a few. BTW - I truly don't believe that clause is there to keep players out, but it was more so intended to let lesser players in who were 'good guys' and people wanted to see them there despite lackluster numbers.

Do I like PED's in baseball? Not really...I enjoy the game more without them. That said, Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds belong in the HOF and their exclusion to me would diminish it more than their inclusion ever could.

[ubernoob]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Nobody likes a cheater that gets caught. Everyone loves cheaters that don't.

Sammy Sosa was the toast of the town before his bat broke. I don't know a single person that has ever followed baseball that wasn't wrapped up in the home run chase and duels during the seasons those were happening.

I think it's about time to start looking at it for what it is (a game that puts a product out there for people to enjoy and forget their real world troubles for a few hours a night) instead of holding it up to some almighty idealistic views that have never been the truth.

It's not the "Hall of Morality". It's the Baseball Hall of Fame. If you tell me Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Ty Cobb, John McGraw, Gaylord Perry, Pete Rose and the multitudes of other players with the amazing skill level to pull off what they did throughout their careers don't belong in the Hall of Fame... Then it's not a "Hall of Fame".

If it were as simple as taking PEDs, filing balls, sharpening cleats and/or using any substance to gain an advantage in any way possible... Everyone could be a Major Leaguer.

[DamnYanks2]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

There wouldn't have even been that much backlash, if the Home run records weren't allegedly tainted. You don't see anybody crying about the doubles record because of steroids.

Baseball's sacred, untouchable record was violated, and people were angry. But, in all reality we really can't compare Hank Aaron's era to Babe Ruth's era, let alone Bonds era. The game was so different in each players era.

Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron had the misfortune of playing with longer fences, higher mounds, and piss poor medical and work out plans. Ruth suffered the most in the latter, (A simple cold knocked him out for the whole season)

You could make cases for, and against them. My biggest knocks on Ruth was he played in a segregated era, where competition may not have been as tough as Aaron's and certainly Bonds. The Latino and Black infusion of players was still a long way away, so Ruth did not have to deal with that.

However, Aaron did, he headlined the infusion of talent. He broke Ruth's home run record and added 41 more for a grand total of 755. But, the caveat was he played in 795 games more then Ruth played in. With only 41 more homers then Ruth, you can imagine had Ruth had the benefactor of medical science, and stayed healthy Ruth would have easily shattered Hank's record of 755.

Bonds of course played in the Steroid era, with medical science at heights never seen in Ruth and Aaron's day. closer fences, and a watered down league with more teams which equal weaker pitching. Bonds hit 762 just seven more then Hank, however he did it while playing 312 less games the Hank. So who's the real Home Run King?

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

I'm afraid you need to take off the idealistic glasses and lets look at these revered heroes who are already in the HOF through the prism of your "character, integrity, and sportsmanship" clause:

The majority of major league baseball players have NOT been good citizens and this goes back to the beginning of time (heck, today's players are saints in comparison). In the beginning they were drunks, gamblers, adulterers, murderers, cheaters, liars, and worse. Baseball players were the fringe of society who couldn't get a job, so they played baseball. Christy Mathewson was an exception, Ty Cobb was more of a norm.

You can scream about character, integrity, and sportsmanship all you want, but then let's be fair and just empty the HOF of all but a few. BTW - I truly don't believe that clause is there to keep players out, but it was more so intended to let lesser players in who were 'good guys' and people wanted to see them there despite lackluster numbers.

Do I like PED's in baseball? Not really...I enjoy the game more without them. That said, Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds belong in the HOF and their exclusion to me would diminish it more than their inclusion ever could.

Nobody likes a cheater that gets caught. Everyone loves cheaters that don't.

Sammy Sosa was the toast of the town before his bat broke. I don't know a single person that has ever followed baseball that wasn't wrapped up in the home run chase and duels during the seasons those were happening.

I think it's about time to start looking at it for what it is (a game that puts a product out there for people to enjoy and forget their real world troubles for a few hours a night) instead of holding it up to some almighty idealistic views that have never been the truth.

It's not the "Hall of Morality". It's the Baseball Hall of Fame. If you tell me Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Ty Cobb, John McGraw, Gaylord Perry, Pete Rose and the multitudes of other players with the amazing skill level to pull off what they did throughout their careers don't belong in the Hall of Fame... Then it's not a "Hall of Fame".

If it were as simple as taking PEDs, filing balls, sharpening cleats and/or using any substance to gain an advantage in any way possible... Everyone could be a Major Leaguer.

Both of these arguments are irrelevant. Nobody's talking about a Hall of Morality. The actual HOF has the character clause in their charter! Sure, there are guys in the hall who don't fit that, obviously. But does that mean we make the problem worse by electing more that don't fit? And that's where we hit the gray area. Personally, I agree that Bonds and Clemens both deserve it, but it's hardly cut and dried.

Just because cheating has been a part of baseball for so long, doesn't mean we should ever excuse it given proper evidence. Would you rather there were no PED testing at all? Such a fatalistic argument. Yeah, let's do nothing, cause, you know, it's BASEBALL!!!

Let me use an analogy since I'm a teacher. Students cheat on tests. It happens. It's probably always happened. So, when I happen to catch one do I just say "cheating on tests has always been a part of tests" and let it slide? Abso-friggin-lutely not.

I hear this coming from those tired arguments: " blah blah blah cheating blah blah Ty Cobb blah blah always been the case blah blah never change blah"

[Sportsforever]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Both of these arguments are irrelevant. Nobody's talking about a Hall of Morality. The actual HOF has the character clause in their charter! Sure, there are guys in the hall who don't fit that, obviously. But does that mean we make the problem worse by electing more that don't fit? And that's where we hit the gray area. Personally, I agree that Bonds and Clemens both deserve it, but it's hardly cut and dried.

Just because cheating has been a part of baseball for so long, doesn't mean we should ever excuse it given proper evidence. Would you rather there were no PED testing at all? Such a fatalistic argument. Yeah, let's do nothing, cause, you know, it's BASEBALL!!!

Let me use an analogy since I'm a teacher. Students cheat on tests. It happens. It's probably always happened. So, when I happen to catch one do I just say "cheating on tests has always been a part of tests" and let it slide? Abso-friggin-lutely not.

I hear this coming from those tired arguments: " blah blah blah cheating blah blah Ty Cobb blah blah always been the case blah blah never change blah"

First off, I never said PED use should be ignored. I don't like it (although I dislike the high horse the media is on right now more than PED's) and want it out of the game...never said otherwise.

You seem to think it's a tired argument, but you don't address it. If we've let racists, crooks, and low character guys in all along, why should we all the sudden change the rules? Why should PED use be treated differently as a character issue than racism or alcoholism or abusiveness? You seem to say "well, we've let those guys in and we can't take them out, but by golly we have to draw the line here and now and not let PED guys in." I just want to know why now?

And BTW - there are already plenty of PED users in the HOF. HOF'rs themselves have stated they already know of steroid users who were inducted years ago, although they won't give names.

[ubernoob]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Right, I'm not saying we allow PEDs all of a sudden. Testing and punishment should be in there.

I fully believe Braun should be punished more. I think he should have to sit out until next ASB (but that's irrelevant here) and I'm a Brewers fan. I just don't think alleged PED use is a reason to keep people out of the HOF.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

We can agree there's nothing we can do to change the current makeup of the HOF. There's a scumbag of every flavor in there already. Whether it's cheating or gambling or racism and what have you.

My point is we don't have to settle (and accept any lowlife) just because "that's the way it's always been." And I think we're seeing that with the roid guys. Voters are (for now anyway) not ok with any performance enhancement or even speculation thereof. I think that's a totally new can of worms with unfair blanket-statement speculation about the roids era.

But my point is we don't really have to compromise on who we (and by "we" obviously people who have a ballot, not us per se) elect from here on out just because baseball has a glorious history of cheating and some used that to get into the hall. I don't really see this "cheating in the past" thing as paramount, or even relevant, to decisions made today.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Right, I'm not saying we allow PEDs all of a sudden. Testing and punishment should be in there.

I fully believe Braun should be punished more. I think he should have to sit out until next ASB (but that's irrelevant here) and I'm a Brewers fan. I just don't think alleged PED use is a reason to keep people out of the HOF.

But that's such a massive contradiction you're caught in.

On the one hand, you don't even think players on PEDs should be allowed to play.

On the other hand, using PEDs wouldn't disqualify them for the highest honor in the game.

See the problem with that position? Or is it just me? I mean how can you gain an award for participation in something you couldn't even participate in due to unacceptable activity?

To resolve that, you've either got to allow cheaters to play or DQ them from the HOF. Or maybe take a conditional position, i.e. the player merited inclusion in spite of PED usage.

[ubernoob]

If continued PED usage cost them that much time in their career, they wouldn't make the HoF. It's a non issue to me. I had this discussion with my family as well.

It's a game. The best, however legitimately (or illegitimately depending on your view) they got to be the best they deserve to be recognized. It's not my money I'm spending on players that run the risk of suspension and it's not my personal health I'm risking for millions of dollars.

I think the punishment for getting caught using "PEDs" should be a full year of baseball. Each time one gets caught. Have a legitimate tough testing system. I just don't like the rhetoric that taking PEDs magically makes you a better baseball player. It's the way the media has spun it - the only reason they are illegal in sports is because they are illegal in America. We might as well as say anyone taking any type of supplement should be disbarred from baseball because they aren't doing it naturally.

[Brandon13]

Any PED user whose numbers are HOF worthy would receive my vote... eventually. Ideally (a.k.a., if I ran things) the HOF voters would collectively agree to a self-imposed five to ten year waiting period on voting in a PED user following the player's first year of HOF eligibility.

Not a perfect system obviously, but it's a simple solution that would cover all of my concerns.

[wwharton]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

If continued PED usage cost them that much time in their career, they wouldn't make the HoF. It's a non issue to me. I had this discussion with my family as well.

It's a game. The best, however legitimately (or illegitimately depending on your view) they got to be the best they deserve to be recognized. It's not my money I'm spending on players that run the risk of suspension and it's not my personal health I'm risking for millions of dollars.

I think the punishment for getting caught using "PEDs" should be a full year of baseball. Each time one gets caught. Have a legitimate tough testing system. I just don't like the rhetoric that taking PEDs magically makes you a better baseball player. It's the way the media has spun it - the only reason they are illegal in sports is because they are illegal in America. We might as well as say anyone taking any type of supplement should be disbarred from baseball because they aren't doing it naturally.

Don't want to quote everything but I agree with a lot of your posts on this. I'd also like to add another angle...

Baseball is just NOW getting serious about penalizing these players. A proper testing system in place will create the situation where "cheaters" will miss a significant amount of time (and get shunned by many teams fearing risk of more games) that would effect stats/team accomplishments/records/etc. and keep them out of the HOF just as you stated. But that type of effect takes time and everyone wants to see results for punishing the scum of the earth NOW. I think it's fine as it is and just like anything else, those who got it in before the rules changed were just lucky... and I'm sure there are a number of NFL HOFers who lived off of horse collars and clothes line tackles that can appreciate the benefit of being judged based on the rules of the time.

Lets go back to some of these people we're talking about. Big Mac, Bonds, Clemens, etc. played during a time when everyone in the MLB from the commissioner to every owner knew very well how rampant roid use was in the clubhouses around the league. There is no way of looking at it other than to say they simply did not care. They basically told these players they could juice up as much as they want. I have a HUGE problem with rule/thinking changing, going back and judging the past based on the current rules. I have an even bigger problem with limiting how far we go back to judge (it's obvious the witch hunt centers around the HR record, the hatred for Bonds the person). If we can't analyze what players were taking farther back in time, and properly reevaluate their accomplishments based on what isn't allowed today then I don't agree it's right to do it for this current group either.

So even if you (not you, ubernoob) want to keep ARod out of the HOF or keep Braun out, I don't necessary agree that roids should be the driving force with either of these two but I can understand the stance more. THe voting process for these other guys is just extremely hypocritical to me though.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?

Don't want to quote everything but I agree with a lot of your posts on this. I'd also like to add another angle...

Baseball is just NOW getting serious about penalizing these players. A proper testing system in place will create the situation where "cheaters" will miss a significant amount of time (and get shunned by many teams fearing risk of more games) that would effect stats/team accomplishments/records/etc. and keep them out of the HOF just as you stated. But that type of effect takes time and everyone wants to see results for punishing the scum of the earth NOW. I think it's fine as it is and just like anything else, those who got it in before the rules changed were just lucky... and I'm sure there are a number of NFL HOFers who lived off of horse collars and clothes line tackles that can appreciate the benefit of being judged based on the rules of the time.

Lets go back to some of these people we're talking about. Big Mac, Bonds, Clemens, etc. played during a time when everyone in the MLB from the commissioner to every owner knew very well how rampant roid use was in the clubhouses around the league. There is no way of looking at it other than to say they simply did not care. They basically told these players they could juice up as much as they want. I have a HUGE problem with rule/thinking changing, going back and judging the past based on the current rules. I have an even bigger problem with limiting how far we go back to judge (it's obvious the witch hunt centers around the HR record, the hatred for Bonds the person). If we can't analyze what players were taking farther back in time, and properly reevaluate their accomplishments based on what isn't allowed today then I don't agree it's right to do it for this current group either.

So even if you (not you, ubernoob) want to keep ARod out of the HOF or keep Braun out, I don't necessary agree that roids should be the driving force with either of these two but I can understand the stance more. THe voting process for these other guys is just extremely hypocritical to me though.

The only problem I have with that argument is you are basically implying that a robust drug enforcement program will eradicate cheating, but we know that cheaters will keep improving their methods of evasion too. The financial stakes are far too high for people to stop cheating. I do agree that stronger enforcement should lead to a decrease in cheating though.

I think keeping A-Rod out will actually be relatively easy since he admitted (on TV) to using roids during his peak statistical years in Texas (and claiming he stopped...). And with another suspension on the horizon for him, even with those gaudy stats, I really don't see 75% on any ballot in his future. You can argue about if that's the correct decision or not, but his image is too far gone and I just don't see that much of the electorate budging on this. That will be the lasting legacy he leaves.

These guys will be on a case-by-case basis too, no doubt. Guys I'd tend to say yes on include Bonds and Clemens, who, in my opinion were putting up HoF careers before their dalliances with PEDs insofar as we can assume to know where the line of demarcation is for both of them. While their final numbers I'd tend to downplay somewhat, I still think they did enough, even in spite of all the bad, to warrant inclusion in the HoF.

Other guys like McGwire are easier. I actually think he doesn't get in on merit anyway. He was so one-dimensional.

Sosa is a closer call than McGwire, but as a Cubs fan, he doesn't quite make it for me.

And the list goes on and on.

One other thing. If you think about it, I'm not sure the HoF would have a problem not electing Bonds even if he is the all-time HR leader. Pete Rose is the hits leader and the HoF has been ok without him. So, it doesn't necessarily cheapen the hall to exclude at least some of these guys.