Re: Hall Of Fame: Yes Or No?
I don't think that's a problem at all. It's basically just an extension of life. As has been said over and over, players have been cheating since the beginning of time... hell, people have been cheating since the beginning of time. I think you're implying that there is some way to stop cheating all together, but as you just mentioned, there really isn't. That's just more reason to not attempt to reserve the HOF for only the handful of squeaky clean and a larger group of players who didn't get caught or punished for their version of cheating during their era.
I don't think McGwire or Sosa had enough behind them to get in either. But I don't think you can possibly compare Bonds to Pete Rose, and don't really get all the people that have been trying to make the comparison lately. Rose has been kept out for being stubborn in a game of chicken he couldn't win. If he came clean years ago he'd be fine now. Not to mention I think there's a HUGE difference between gambling, which motivates players/coaches to tank games, and taking one thing (on a banned list) instead of another (on a not banned list) to improve individual ability.
And all of my comments are based on my feelings. I don't even want to try to figure out what HOF voters would actually do because I think they're all full of it with the way they're approaching this anyway.
I don't think that's a problem at all. It's basically just an extension of life. As has been said over and over, players have been cheating since the beginning of time... hell, people have been cheating since the beginning of time. I think you're implying that there is some way to stop cheating all together, but as you just mentioned, there really isn't. That's just more reason to not attempt to reserve the HOF for only the handful of squeaky clean and a larger group of players who didn't get caught or punished for their version of cheating during their era.
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.
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.
And all of my comments are based on my feelings. I don't even want to try to figure out what HOF voters would actually do because I think they're all full of it with the way they're approaching this anyway.
Comment