Hall of Fame Discussion 2022 and Beyond

BostonRoss 2021-12-30 19:05:10 UTC #21

No question MLB shoulders a lot of the blame for the PED problem. I know people who think that since Selig is in, the PED guys he enabled should be in as well. I don't agree that more wrongs make a right, but I can see the argument.

Even though you and I disagree about who should be in, I think your opinion is reasonable. I know a lot of people who feel as you do.

andyb 2021-12-30 19:28:24 UTC #22

Keith Law's ballot. I guess the morals clause around Clemens has gotten more complicated of late.

zambonir 2021-12-30 22:24:37 UTC #23

Didn't see that coming

bkox 2021-12-31 21:50:46 UTC #24

Here’s the column explaining my first-time @baseballhall picks. Steroid guys: fine. No DH, no relievers, no creeps (Schilling). Three #Phillies connections (coincidentally). https://t.co/xNyp8UyYMH
— Marcus Hayes ( @inkstainedretch ) December 31, 2021

VoteForKalas 2021-12-31 22:33:29 UTC #25

Bonds will likely get in at some point even though his actions and lies about them show his true character. Steroids are a serious offense, but there never was a clear rule or enforcement of that rule due to MLB's pursuit of profits over integrity.

Rose should never be put in. He broke the cardinal rule of baseball that was posted on every clubhouse door by gambling on his own team while he was a manager. The rule was known to all in the game; he knew what he was doing and, because of his greed and arrogance, did it anyway repeatedly. Then, when caught and held accountable as he should have been, he spent the next several decades lying about it and smearing the people who had protected the integrity of the game from his corruption.

Both players actively and willingly did what they did and they only have themselves to blame for it. The taint is part of their legacy. Hopefully, MLB has learned something (which I doubt unfortunately) from both situations, but they are not to blame for the actions these two men took.

bkox 2021-12-31 22:42:14 UTC #26

Gambling is an addiction just the same as any other and should be treated as a medical condition and not something to be punished.. especially NOW when every game has gambling ads encouraging people to bet on everything from the score to the amount of strikeouts the SP throws.

Rose played the game hard for decades..And there was never any indication he bet against his team or did anything to alter the game. He hated losing too much for that. Only if you want to continue villainizing and criminalizing addiction do you keep Rose out of the game for gambling.. especially with MLB and its partners now profiting from, what im sure is, many gambling addicts.

RTaylor 2022-01-01 00:15:21 UTC #27

I think the Madden rule applies. If you can't write the history of the sport without the player, then they're truly great and need to be enshrined. Rose, Bonds, Clemens, McGwire--you can't represent baseball's past without them, or you simply erase what fans experienced. Allen absolutely belongs--more athletic than Stargell and McCovey and just as terrifying in his prime.

zambonir 2022-01-01 00:21:58 UTC #28

I'd probably still vote for Pete if he was on the ballot but at this point if he wasn't already banned because of gambling, we'd be hearing about the statutory rape allegations instead, which already kept him from being honored by the Phillies. So, not shedding any tears about it either way.

(And yes, he's not the only one, but it's easier to never put someone in than to take them out.)

VoteForKalas 2022-01-03 18:53:34 UTC #29

I have sympathy for people who are addicted to gambling. If they admit it, get help and work to repair the damage they did to others, I fully support a second chance for anyone. We've seen that work many times in all walks of life.

However, a gambling addiction is not a getaway free card. One is still responsible for one's actions and words, especially over several decades like in Rose's case. If he had a gambling addiction that he could not control, he should have known accepting a manager position was very dangerous in light of the cardinal MLB rule against it. The team should have vetted him much more carefully as well.

And when caught and punished in line with that very rule, Rose had another choice. He could come clean, get help and work to repair the damage in hopes he could get reinstated and put in the HOF. Instead, he lied to his fans, to the public and unfortunately to himself for way too long and smeared MLB unfairly which gave the league no way to give him another chance. He also made money off his false claims of victimhood which IMO is despicable.

I would have given Rose another chance if he had done his part, but unfortunately his ego and lack of character guided his words and actions until it was too late.

bkox 2022-01-03 19:32:18 UTC #30

Addiction though is a funny thing. There is a lot of denial involved. I myself am a food addict. Honestly I have probably been one since I was like 10 years old. At 15 I weighed 300lbs.. and at my heaviest I was probably close to 600lbs. There were days I would consume 20000 calories.

Food has destroyed my life. Gave me a disease.. cost me a limb.. made it that I never had the confidence to do anything in life.. I lived in Reading for over 2 decades. Literally a 10 min ride from the ballpark.. and never went to see a Reading Phils game because of my weight.

BUT.. even with all that evidence of what my eating was doing to me.. it wasnt until just a few years ago that I finally realized that I was a food addict and binge eater. And its truly a mind... when you come to terms with it. Its both an epiphany and a very depressing state of mind. When younger I had 2 jobs in food service (McDOnalds and Pizza Hut). Just like you say Pete shouldnt have taken a job as a manager.. I should never have worked around food. But you dont think about that. Pete, when accepting the manager position, probably never saw his gambling as an issue. Just like I never foresaw being around food for 8+ hours a day as a problem until it was.

To admit you have an addiction means having to admit to not having control. And Pete just might not be able to do that. That ego and all that he is... helped lead teams to championships. And honestly there is probably something from his childhood that drove him to be what he ended up like as an adult... and for decades that way he was, was applauded.. ws encouraged.. There wasnt pushback on it. At age 38 he was a highly sought after free agent.. by 2 countries. He 25 years as a player the man was rewarded and applauded for his behaviour.

And his addiction was no different than Mantle's addiction that pickled his liver and killed him young.. or Billy Martin's that saw him get into multiple bar fights.. and even ones in the dugout and lead to fun actedotes. It just happens to be the one that is against baseball rules.

Pete Rose is a flawed man. We all are. Hes not a good human being. But NO one cared about that when he was helping the Reds and Phillies win championships.. Rose brought alot to MLB. And, even in his gambling, he never harmed it. He made the owners money, He gave the fans what they paid for every day. All eyes were on baseball as he approached Cobb (who may or not be a murder, and was definitely a racist and prided himself in hurting people with his metal spikes but still in the HOF)

Pete Rose gave baseball everything he had. He deserves a plaque.

schillingfan 2022-01-03 21:15:05 UTC #31

I’d give everyone a plaque, regardless. Moral judgements are too subjective. Lots of horrible human beings are stars in sports, art, acting, chess, cooking, writing, etc. the only difference is some we know about, some we find out later, and some we never learn about. I take their work of art for what it is. Frankly, that’s subjective, too. Rose’s art form was aggressive, winning at an costs, and uncaring if he hurt others. Not m favor I ate art (baseball) style. But it was a true art form deserving of recognition.

I also have changed my mind on steroids. The players who used and had great careers were good without them. Others like Lenny Dkstra had a great year or two, but would have been in the hall anyway. Flawed greats existed. They had impact. Don’t rewrite history, accept it as it was. (As an aside I still greatly admire the mind of Thomas Jefferson and the leadership of George Washington).

zambonir 2022-01-03 22:24:02 UTC #32

We go 'round and 'round on this stuff every year. But yeah, to me the Hall of Fame is not an honor, but a historical document.

Its own rules kind of say otherwise though, or at least can be read that way.

So I'd vote for Pete, and it's understandable many wouldn't. Of course all of that is moot as he remains ineligible, which is a separate debate. For the steroids guys there is no question, for me, that you can't separate them from the context of the era, and they were great (and some of them were great anyway). But you can still hold that character clause against them even when everybody was going it (almost).

As for the Hall itself, the founding fathers are probably a pretty good comparison. Similarly, I'd be fine if the statue of Joe Paterno was still up somewhere on Penn State's campus. But the display would talk about why it was taken down, as well as what else he did, both good and bad. Same for some of the Confederate stuff. Easier said than done though.

BostonRoss 2022-01-03 23:56:24 UTC #33

I think anyone who has an honest opinion on the Hall of Fame has a valid opinion. You can think it's an honor or not. You can think that only performance should be considered, and that PEDs, or gambling, or greenies, or spouting horrible things on social media shouldn't matter.

I think that the 75% threshold for being elected is a good one. That means a dominant percentage of knowledgeable baseball people think someone belongs. When there is enough controversy that a quarter of the voters don't think you belong, then that seems like enough to exclude someone.

I won't boycott Cooperstown if Bonds gets in. I won't snap a selfie by his plaque, but I'll read it and move on.

xogfog 2022-01-04 19:49:06 UTC #34

Are these the same "knowledgeable" baseball people that gave Bobby Abreu a gold glove and kept Dick Allen out?

BostonRoss 2022-01-04 20:39:45 UTC #35

In the case of Gold Gloves, no. When Abreu was awarded the Gold Glove, the players and managers voted (they still do, but there is also a statistical component now).

In the case of Allen's recent failures to be elected, the answer is also no, it is not the same group. It was a much smaller group that had a lot of ex-players/managers in addition to writers/historians. In the case of Allen's failure to be selected by the BBWAA when he was originally not voted in, the answer is sort of. It was the writers, but he fell off the ballot at a time when counting stats were deemed more important, and many other contemporaries like Ron Santo and Orlando Cepeda whose careers were on the short side were also denied induction by the BBWAA. Allen stands up better today using modern analytics (on offense, at least) and I htink a larger group would vote him in.

That said, Allen is hardly a slam dunk candidate. A knowledgeable person could certainly feel he is unworthy. Allen had some baggage, as we all know. I suspect that if Allen was on the BBWAA ballot now, his votes might have a trajectory closer to that of Scott Rolen, who I think will get in eventually.

xogfog 2022-01-04 21:08:22 UTC #36

I understand the differences in the voters, I'm just saying that it seems to me that all "baseball people" suffer from recency bias, parochial bias and herd mentality. It is an imperfect science.

BostonRoss 2022-01-04 22:08:51 UTC #37

I don't think it's science at all. It's a consensus of opinion. And of course it's imperfect as all humans have biases, recency and others.

I think that the vast majority of Hall of Famers elected by the BBWAA are good choices, and that the ones rejected were not clear cut cases. The veterans committees are another matter. Most of the really dubious choices (Baines, Mazeroski, etc.) were made by a veterans committee.

xogfog 2022-01-04 22:17:31 UTC #38

I don't think boxing is a science either, I was using it in that context.

bkox 2022-01-07 05:37:53 UTC #39

Every year Ryan Spader does a HOF ballot on twitter. The only ballots come from ex MLBers. Ben Davis and Kevin Frandsen are two of the 53 that have sent a ballot in so far this year

So far 53 ex MLBers have responded and only 2 players have 75% of the vote. Bonds and Clemens.

So it appears that Bonds and Clemens's peers care less about the PED issue than the writers and fans.

https://theaceofspaeder.com/2021/11/23/the-ballots-2021/

andyb 2022-01-07 13:38:28 UTC #40

Ortiz, Bonds and Clemens still running above 75% in the tracker from the first post of this thread. Still doubt they all make it of course because of the private ballots yet to be counted.