Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
As much as I disagree with the logic of Bunning and Gossage* (as well as Bunning's assessment of the unanimity of opinion among the existing HoFers), it does demonstrate that the Hall has a genuine issue on its hands. A great many folks here, who don't see steroids as disqualifying, look at a Hall without Bonds, Clemens, etc., as an institution that has entered complete irrelevance. However, there is a population (I don't know how large, but I suspect it's larger than the pro-steroids side) that would look at a Hall with Bonds, Clemens, etc., the exact same way. That's not good for the HoF.
I think this is right. It's going to be awkward to have Bonds and/or Clemens on stage getting booed by half the crowd and with only 20 or so living Hall of Famers up there.
I for one welcome Goose's assumption of the Bob Feller Memorial ornery old guy Chair.
I dunno. Feller was way better.
To be fair, Gossage wasn't babied like modern closers. I don't think Gossage was overvalued at the time.
That's just an argument against admitting closers. The HoF has decided to admit them. If closers are admitted, Gossage deserves to be in.
Yeah, I'm sticking with he should thank his lucky stars.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (1 members)
Page rendered in 1.0504 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed