Originally Posted by TDog
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.
Yeah that's kinda my point. It's a phony image. So go for it, if you feel the need to defend it. I'd rather see it as what it is. That's why I don't give a frog's fat ass over what people think about when a player "deserves" to get in the Hall of if he does at all. Because they are, at least partially, basing that judgement off something that is false. Like I said, is it disillusioning, yes it is. Maybe that's what baseball "deserves" at this point.