HOF Ballot Announced: Liars, Cheaters, and Scumbags Included

[Bob Roarman]

Originally Posted by Boondock Saint

That doesn't mean you should just keep on doing the wrong thing.

Just depends on your definition of right and wrong. The reality is that PEDs became a part of the competition in baseball decades ago, and are still now. And it's a choice every player makes. Of course baseball will want to desperately preserve an image of "purity" and Americana and all that horse****, condemn all of it as "wrong". But where has that gotten them? It's gotten them a tainted Hall of Fame, numerous scandals, lies, cover ups, Congressional hearings (!?!), all over trying to get an edge over the opponent.

This is not what's going to happen, because of the aforementioned self-preserving behavior, but the "right" thing to do is that baseball players be seen as professional athletes first and foremost, not as heroes or role models. That any foray into serious organized sports be met with the education of everything that comes along with that, all the choices, the risks. Is it disillusioning, yeah sure. Does the "magic" go away, I guess. But you want to talk about continuing to do the wrong things, continuing to look at things the wrong way, all you have to do is look at how these discussions go every single year.

[TDog]

Originally Posted by Bob Roarman

That's a delusion. The title of this thread is a joke. There are already liars, cheaters, scumbags, racists, etc, in the Hall of Fame. Just one more reason why I don't take any of this argument against the latest "crop" seriously. It's completely hypocritical. Your precious Hall of Fame has been tainted for generations.

The character flaws among current Hall of Famers is a bit exaggerated and taken out of context.

For example, a writer working on a new biography of Ty Cobb claims Al Stump distorted Ty Cobb's dark side for personal profit. Cobb died before Stump finished the book. While Cobb had a reputation, the worst stuff didn't come out until the Stump-written autobiography, and later in a magizine article and book written by stump (later adapted for the screen) written by Stump. Meanwhile, Stump is alleged to sold Ty Cobb memorabilia that he found at yard sales. At the time of the first Hall of Fame vote, Cobb was considered a role model as a baseball player although he was flawed as a person. If it was believed by most Americans at the time that he killed a man in Detroit, he wouldn't have been elected to the Hall fo Fame.

When you are looking at scumbags in the Hall of Fame, you are looking at them with standards that have changed since their election. Cap Anson was a racist who worked to keep baseball white, but at the time of his election to the Hall of Fame, major league baseball was white. (By the way, Cobb not only was not only not a member of the KKK, as many believe, but he said late in his life that he had no problem with baseball being integrated.)

You can look back at current members of the Hall of Fame and say it is likely Babe Ruth was using cocaine as a stimulant, but when he died, he remained a national treasure. It isn't like no one knew or cared about Barry Bonds and Rafael Palmeiro enhancing their performance drugs by the end of their careers.

Performance-enchancing drugs is considered by baseball and the public to be a major concern. Many in the public believe baseball isn't concerned enough. There is a huge difference between electing someone to the Hall of Fame whose legend might night age well and electing someone that America believes cheated.

[chicagowhitesox1]

Originally Posted by TDog

The character flaws among current Hall of Famers is a bit exaggerated and taken out of context.

For example, a writer working on a new biography of Ty Cobb claims Al Stump distorted Ty Cobb's dark side for personal profit. Cobb died before Stump finished the book. While Cobb had a reputation, the worst stuff didn't come out until the Stump-written autobiography, and later in a magizine article and book written by stump (later adapted for the screen) written by Stump. Meanwhile, Stump is alleged to sold Ty Cobb memorabilia that he found at yard sales. At the time of the first Hall of Fame vote, Cobb was considered a role model as a baseball player although he was flawed as a person. If it was believed by most Americans at the time that he killed a man in Detroit, he wouldn't have been elected to the Hall fo Fame.

When you are looking at scumbags in the Hall of Fame, you are looking at them with standards that have changed since their election. Cap Anson was a racist who worked to keep baseball white, but at the time of his election to the Hall of Fame, major league baseball was white. (By the way, Cobb not only was not only not a member of the KKK, as many believe, but he said late in his life that he had no problem with baseball being integrated.)

You can look back at current members of the Hall of Fame and say it is likely Babe Ruth was using cocaine as a stimulant, but when he died, he remained a national treasure. It isn't like no one knew or cared about Barry Bonds and Rafael Palmeiro enhancing their performance drugs by the end of their careers.

Performance-enchancing drugs is considered by baseball and the public to be a major concern. Many in the public believe baseball isn't concerned enough. There is a huge difference between electing someone to the Hall of Fame whose legend might night age well and electing someone that America believes cheated.

Is the new writer Bill Burgess?

[TDog]

Originally Posted by chicagowhitesox1

Is the new writer Bill Burgess?

Charlie Leerhsen.

[Bob Roarman]

Originally Posted by TDog

Performance-enchancing drugs is considered by baseball and the public to be a major concern. Many in the public believe baseball isn't concerned enough. There is a huge difference between electing someone to the Hall of Fame whose legend might night age well and electing someone that America believes cheated.

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****.

[TDog]

Originally Posted by Bob Roarman

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.

[Bob Roarman]

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.

[TDog]

Originally Posted by Bob Roarman

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.

Any Hall of Fame presents the image the sport wants to present. By that definition, any Hall of Fame exists to present a phony image if you want to use a pejorative term. Enshrining players because of accomplishments despite the fact that fans don't respect them because of the circumstances of those accomplishments is more phony recognizing that players notorious in the context of their times for their use of performance-enhancing drugs don't belong in the Hall of Fame.

Baseball is not now looking the other way when it comes to performance-enhancing drugs, even if baseball did at one time. Some would like to see stricter enforcement, and with good reason. You shouldn't have to destroy your health to make a living as a skilled athlete. You should not put your competition in a position to risk their health to compete with you. Henry Aaron is exponentially more respected than Barry Bonds.

Putting Rafael Palmeiro into the Hall of Fame because he met a statistical threshold while suspending players for attempting to gain the same edge he had, in violation of federal law, would be more phony than leaving him out.

[Hendu]

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.

I agree that the HOF is a bit of a popularity contest; which is why players from the more popular teams have a better shot at getting in compared to players with similar careers on the unpopular teams, and writers can slowly build cases for borderline HOF-ers until one day they're suddenly "good enough" to be enshrined.

However, sometimes a player's numbers are so overwhelmingly stunning that the rest doesn't matter. Clemens and Bonds are certainly the two best players in their era, and definitely in the conversation when it comes to the best players ever. PEDs will complicate things, but ultimately they shouldn't in the end. Right or wrong, it was a huge part of the era and nobody cared until things got out of control (which was bound to happen after records were being shattered).

As an aside, an argument could be made that all of the body armor players were allowed to wear had as big of an effect on hitters as PEDs.

Anyway, unless Bud starts banning players (unlikely as it would turn attention on MLB's role in all of this), it's in the hands of the writers. If McGwire still gets 20% of the vote (why he gets more than Rafael Palmeiro, a far more deserving candidate, makes no sense), Bonds and Clemens should get substantially more. Then it's all about building cases and taking a fresh look, yadda yadda, over the next 10+ years until momentum starts building to finally let them in.

[Bob Roarman]

Originally Posted by TDog

Any Hall of Fame presents the image the sport wants to present. By that definition, any Hall of Fame exists to present a phony image if you want to use a pejorative term.

See, now you're starting to get the hang of things.

Originally Posted by TDog

Baseball is not now looking the other way when it comes to performance-enhancing drugs, even if baseball did at one time. Some would like to see stricter enforcement, and with good reason. You shouldn't have to destroy your health to make a living as a skilled athlete. You should not put your competition in a position to risk their health to compete with you. Henry Aaron is exponentially more respected than Barry Bonds.

How far you wish to pursue it is completely up to the player, no one forces him to take PEDs. Just like no one forces him to go on a special diet or lift weights or train at high altitude. These are all choices. But no matter what, you are at the very least putting at risk the quality of your later life (and at present in tons of cases) if you have a career of being a professional athlete. That is unavoidable. Baseball, football, hockey, basketball, some more than others, but it's all a risk that comes with the job. And it's completely up to the players to make that choice if it's worth it to them or not. Even without PEDs, that's just the way it is, there's no enforcing that out of pro sports. It's a year round deal for most of these guys now.

[A. Cavatica]

I want the Big Hurt in to the HoF on the first ballot. He'll be hurt by being a DH for a large part of his career, but he (along with Griffey) was the best hitter of his era -- assuming you compare him to other untarnished hitters.

Throw Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, Palmeiro in there and the case for Hurt isn't as crystal clear as it should be.

[chicagowhitesox1]

Originally Posted by A. Cavatica

I want the Big Hurt in to the HoF on the first ballot. He'll be hurt by being a DH for a large part of his career, but he (along with Griffey) was the best hitter of his era -- assuming you compare him to other untarnished hitters.

Throw Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, Palmeiro in there and the case for Hurt isn't as crystal clear as it should be.

When Thomas is eligable i'm sure he'll be a first ballot.

[SephClone89]

Originally Posted by chicagowhitesox1

When Thomas is eligable i'm sure he'll be a first ballot.

Not positive. Look how long it's taking Bagwell, for instance.

[TommyJohn]

Originally Posted by chicagowhitesox1

When Thomas is eligable i'm sure he'll be a first ballot.

Not bloody likely. For years, Rick “I’ll only vote for guys who played the game cleanly” Telander has campaigned against him, insisting that a DH like Thomas has no place in the hallowed Mecca in Cooperstown. This is, of course, the same Rick Telander that then turns around and casts a vote for scumbag, rotten, awful blaspheming DH Edgar Martinez because he played the game cleanly. This is the kind of mentality that Thomas will be up against.

[russ99]

Originally Posted by TommyJohn

Not bloody likely. For years, Rick “I’ll only vote for guys who played the game cleanly” Telander has campaigned against him, insisting that a DH like Thomas has no place in the hallowed Mecca in Cooperstown. This is, of course, the same Rick Telander that then turns around and casts a vote for scumbag, rotten, awful blaspheming DH Edgar Martinez because he played the game cleanly. This is the kind of mentality that Thomas will be up against.

That would be a travesty, but I can kinda see it happen. Anything less than 2nd ballot is insulting for a guy with such ridiculous numbers, though.