View Single Post
  #81  
Old 01-01-2013, 08:23 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 16,152
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Roarman View Post
A concern for their image. Their image, a big difference there. That's the same public that cheered on McGwuire and Sosa and all the other big bombers, and now they are concerned? Where were they back then? Did people not know that steroids could have averse effects to a player's health? Do they not know that sports in general has adverse effects to players' health? They did. And they were being entertained in light of it. Just like we do in football, or in hockey or in almost any sport. Look, they got what they wanted, they got what they paid for. And that's okay. If they could just collectively come to an understanding about this, it would be okay, you could start moving forward instead of all this hand wringing about cheaters and liars and whatnot. There's no need to stand on a soapbox and pretend you always cared about the purity of the game or the players' well being or any of that which gets to the absolutely insane point of Congressional hearings. That's all bull****.
The Hall of Fame is about image. If when a player retires fans do not respect his achievements because of the way he achieved them, his achievements don't merit him a place in the Hall of Fame. This isn't a black-and-white matter of contract law where x achievements guarantee a player enshrinement and rules broken in the process can be overlooked if it can be shown breaking the rules was encouraged by baseball. The Hall of Fame is about the image of baseball.

The Hall of Fame isn't about statisics. The mission of the instititon is to present the best of the game. Voting for players who at the time of retirement had lost the respect of the public do not belong in the Hall of Fame.
Reply With Quote