Pro Football Hall of Fame (OT)

[bkeich]

An interesting discussion. Should the Football HOF introduce a character clause to get out of this mess (in the future). It has certainly been a mixed blessing for baseball, but generally I agree with it.

This is almost the perfect test case, an apparently good guy that committed a horrific crime. It has kept him out of the HOF for decades, I personally think the decision has been made and the discussion should be closed, but apparently someone reintroduced it. (I ignore the CTE stuff, it is a red herring, you don’t know if he had it and it isn’t a pass for murder)

The character clause is valid, should be in all HOF, but because it is by definition vague, it causes problems. If Hitler had been a sports hero would you want him in the HOF? No, obviously. But someone like Lawrence Taylor that really has only hurt himself, harder call.
(I don’t remember if Taylor actually hurt anyone, maybe I have forgotten something he did among his myriad of idiocy, not the point of the discussion)

Maybe you don’t need the clause. Perhaps, as apparently HOF Football voters decided, there is an inherent line you can’t cross to be honored by your sport.

A 'can of worms' for HOF voters in Tyrer's candidacy

[xogfog]

Then, what do you do with OJ Simpson, do you take him out of the hall of fame?

[bkeich]

Then, what do you do with OJ Simpson, do you take him out of the hall of fame?

I think I wouldn’t remove anyone unless extreme. Simpson, despite what many believe, was really only convicted of stealing back his own memorabilia that I assume he sold (or something like that).

Many, myself included, think he killed 2 people, but he was found innocent of that. I don’t think you can act on that.

[xogfog]

You left out that he lost the civil trial that found him guilty of the murders.

[phillychuck]

Criminal trials do not find defendants innocent, they find them "not guilty", which might mean there wasn't enough evidence or the prosecution did a lousy job or they were innocent in reality.

It's pretty hard to believe Simpson was innocent in reality.

[andyb]

In general I am not a fan of character clauses because they are so subjective. Performance enhancement and cheating are different because they affect performance. Pete Rose is a gray area but I would still let him in to the baseball HOF. Joe Jackson too. The steroid guys are a little different because it affected performance, though what do we do with players never formally caught and the reality that 99% of players did something illegal even if it was only to heal faster.

Stick to the performance in their career and put the bad stuff on the plaque too.

[zambonir]

I've always thought it would be better not to get caught up in the "honor" of a Hall of Fame (which is certainly not in the title). It's a hall of history. The Hitler comparison actually works, if you view it like Time's Man of the Year.

That even includes the steroids guys for me. They did what they did and we know how they did it and one way or another they are still in the record books, and any educated fan would know the context. I don't know if I would put that someone killed their wife on their HOF plaque but you could definitely do what Andy suggests with Bonds and Clemens etc.

I also feel like the voters never really fully reckoned with the fact that so many people were using PEDs. So when Bonds hit a home run, it was probably off someone who was also using (many times). When he stole a base, the catcher or shortstop might have also been. For me it's the same as the various dead balls and dimensional quirks that have always been in the game, especially when they weren't truly legal.

I actually do find the CTE argument pretty compelling. It can't be litigated now, bu if he did what he did in this day and age and had not killed himself, it likely would have been the defense. Of course he'd still have to be dead to get definitive diagnosis.

I'm sure some people would like to take OJ out of the football HoF. And Bill Conlin for baseball.

[BostonRoss]

The character clause is tricky because it is subjective. How bad does someone's character have to be to prevent his induction? Which is worse: betting on baseball or using PEDs?

There are certainly players in the Hall of Fame whose character is questionable. During his playing career, Ty Cobb attacked a fan in the stands during a game; he also was convicted of pulling a gun on a shop owner during an argument. Orlando Cepeda served time for drug smuggling before being elected to the Hall. Then there are people whose poor character might not have been so controversial while they were alive (for example, Cap Anson's racism). Even if Pete Rose's gambling were not disqualifying, would his serving time for tax evasion be? How about his committing statutory rape (though he was not convicted of that)?

What do we do with people who turned their lives around? I don't know if Dave Parker is in the Hall of Fame because he "reformed," or because his drug use (for which he and others, including Hall of Famer Tim Raines, were originally suspended for a year) is deemed not bad enough to disqualify him.

I don't really know the rules for induction in Canton, but I am OK with the 75% of ballots requirement for baseball as it means a supermajority of voters have deemed a candidate worthy. (The small number of voters on whatever they now call the veterans committee makes that a little problematic as 12 people can make the decision, as contrasted with the several hundred needed through the BBWAA.)

[zambonir]

I don't really know the rules for induction in Canton, but I am OK with the 75% of ballots requirement for baseball as it means a supermajority of voters have deemed a candidate worthy.

The story bkeich shared says 40 of 49 voters would have to put him in. Between the fact that 10 people probably won't vote for him regardless and the competition, probably not an issue. This is the "seniors" category, as opposed to the 15 "modern" nominees.

Tyrer is one of five men vying for three spots. The others are Mike Holmgren, who led the Packers to a Super Bowl win and coached 17 seasons in the league; former Packers wide receiver Sterling Sharpe; Maxie Baughan, a nine-time Pro Bowl linebacker in the 1960s; and Ralph Hay, who has been called the founding father of the NFL.

[bkox]

If you are going to talk character clause in the NFL then you also have to talk CTE. how many of these players end up changed because of constant concussions and CTE?

[bkeich]

If you are going to talk character clause in the NFL then you also have to talk CTE. how many of these players end up changed because of constant concussions and CTE?

But how do you determine it? How much was just their personality? How much of it was being treated special because they could play a game? It is a tough slippery slope.

I have a buddy that had 14 concussions playing football (his count) as a kid through playing Safety at FSU. He is in his late 40s now and is a functioning Engineer and one of the best people I know. I admit I fear for his future, but when it comes to brain injuries I simply don’t know how to account for them.

CTE is (so far) impossible to confirm on a live patient and it is equally impossible to determine if someone’s actions is affected by it.

To me it is just too easy to give a CTE pass.

I had a horrible childhood. Should I now be allowed to do anything because of my childhood? Is that my excuse for anything I do? It is just too easy.

[zambonir]

There is a lot of evidence that Tyrer had CTE, just not definitive evidence. Had it happened today, his brain would have been tested.

It's not really that complicated, each of the 49 voters can weigh all of these issues for themselves. Based on this thread some of us would vote for him and some of us would not. I doubt 80% of us would go one way.

[bkeich]

I don’t think it is unreasonable to vote either way. I guess I would say it is a little unfair to vote NO BECAUSE there is no character clause, you can’t really hold him to rules that were not in place when he was a player (or are now). But once again, is the character clause simply implied, as clearly some decided when he was a candidate.

I would vote NO, but it is not clear either way.

[bkox]

My other argument about character clauses is timing.

Ive always brought this up with Rose. If MLB had found out about Pete's gambling after he had been inducted in the HOF, he wouldnt have been removed from the HOF.

If tomorrow a HOFer went on a rampage and killed a bunch of people, would he be removed? If not.. then HOF consideration should only be based on what the player did on the field.