So what follows? Roger Clemens is certainly tangled up in steroids. You can make a case that he’s the greatest pitcher ever. What is the Hall of Fame without Roger Clemens? Barry Bonds is obviously the front man for the Steroid Era. He’s the all-time home run leader and you could argue that he’s the greatest player ever. What’s the Hall of Fame without Barry Bonds? Now, Alex Rodriguez has admitted to using steroids. Already people talk about how they will not vote A-Rod into the Hall of Fame.
More names will emerge. Then, of course, there are the players who MIGHT have used performance enhancers, but we don’t know, we can’t know. Witch hunts follow.
Point is: It’s the Baseball Hall of Fame. That’s all. Are people coming to visit the Baseball Hall of Fame without some of the greatest players of the last 20 years? Will people still view it seriously? I sort of doubt it. Baseball has been a messy game for more than 100 years. In the years before Jackie Robinson, there were no black players. Players caroused and gambled and boozed. Many cheated to get ahead. Many took drugs. There have been beanballs and stolen signals and thrown bats. There have been thugs and racists and liars and everything else. And, yes, there have been steroid users, too.
The Hall of Fame voters can try to sort through that jumble and pull out only the sportsmen with integrity and character. We can try. But we will fail. Seems to me that sportswriters are pretty good at judging what’s a hit and what’s an error. Not great at it. But pretty good. Anyway, we should probably stick with that.
Reader Comments and Retorts
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.
1. baric Posted: February 11, 2009 at 09:12 PM (#3074784)The day any sportswriter does this is the day they erect a hundred-foot statue of Jose Canseco in Cooperstown.
Who needs Andy to explain the difference.
The difference is that no one outside of this website gives a #### about the Hall of Merit.
Spending the last 3-4 years glued to this website I feel like I've really become detached to mainstream baseball fans. I'm not sure when it happened, but all of sudden this week I've realized that I really couldn't care less about who MLB recognizes as the "official" HR champion, or who is in the Hall of Fame, or who wins CY or MVP awards. I just found it incredibly hard to get worked up over whether Ryan Howard would win the MVP this year. It just really made no difference to me.
I always care and feel emotionally attached to discussions on BTF, about who is the best player in the league in a certain year, or whether Free Agent X was a good signing.
In realizing this, I wasn't entirely sure how I felt about it. On the one hand I think it's kind of nice that my blood doesn't get angried up by every inane musing by a sportswriter, but on the other hand something doesn't quite feel right about it.
Agree. I honestly could not tell you who won either league's Cy Young award last year (Cliff Lee and Brandon Webb? Complete guess), and it took me a good 30 seconds to remember who won the AL MVP.
EDIT: One for two.
Even worse, when I heard the Braves had signed Kawakami, I thought "Oh, he's really good." Then I realized I was thinking about a fictional second baseman who'd been on my friend's OOTP team a couple of years before.
LOL
I think it's worth keeping in mind, though, that Cepeda wasn't voted into the Hall of Fame by the writers. He had to wait five years after his last shot with the BBWAA to have the Veteran's Committee get him in. His humanitarian work, which included working as a "goodwill ambassador" for the Giants, also probably helped to rehabilitate the public image that was previously tarnished by his prior drug charges.
Hall of Merit = On field performance only; blinders cheerfully included with each ballot.
Hall of Fame = 75% of the writers decide who's in and who's not; character clause applied with cheerfully acknowledged subjectivity, which makes for lots of entertaining and well-publicized arguments.
Who needs Andy to explain the difference.
The difference is that no one outside of this website gives a #### about the Hall of Merit.
That's unfortunate, since the HoM is one of the great things about this website, possibly the most tangible justification for its existence.
But as for the Hall of Fame getting rid of the character clause: Get a life. Nobody's boycotting the Hall of Fame because poor Mark McGwire has been blackballed.
We have liftoff.
The point is that the character clause has been used unevenly, if at all, and it only serves to lessen the credibility of the Hall of Fame as a shrine to the greatest players ever.
And in my opinion, the character clause was put in place to keep the Black Sox out.
That's unfortunate
It is. It's also the truth.
And now we have a mid-air explosion. The problem is not that Mark McGwire has been blackballed. The problem comes when Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens and Alex Rodriguz and Sammy Sosa and several of Albert Pujols and Pedro Martinez and Randy Johnson and Derek Jeter and Johan Santana and Ken Griffey Jr. and Mariano Rivera and Curt Schilling and Frank Thomas are blackballed.
Many of those are not just great players for this era; they're great players for any era.
No kidding. The whole argument comes off to me as "my side is getting crushed in the debate, so we need to change the rules and see if that helps."
Now, when are they going to decide on the 50 greatest teams of all time? I'd read those threads! Where would the 1923 Santa Clara Leopardos fit in is what I want to know.
The last threads of my caring went out the window this last election. How can you possibly, possibly take seriously a Hall of Fame with Jim Rice in it? Not only did he suck (relatively speaking), he wasn't even all that famous (relatively speaking.)
Maybe not McGwire, but I pretty much am boycotting the Hall of Fame. I don't care about it anymore, and I never plan to visit it, especially after seeing the antics of a noticeable portion of the voters in recent years.
I'm with Poz on eliminating the "character clause" of course.
Simple. Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens and Alex Rodriguz and Sammy Sosa and several of Albert Pujols and Pedro Martinez and Randy Johnson and Derek Jeter and Johan Santana and Ken Griffey Jr. and Mariano Rivera and Curt Schilling and Frank Thomas should go to jail.
A great use of taxpayer money! :-P
And have their children taken away, because, of course, somebody must please think of the children.
I have to say that your words make it all worth while for me, Shooty. I know our founder Joe Dimino and countless others who help to make the HoM what it is would also agree.
As for the teams proposal, the thought of attempting to mix NeL teams in with the MLB teams, while an extremely daunting task, would be an amazing and worthwhile endeavor. After the upcoming pitcher ranking elections (which you and everyone else here are welcome to join) are over, I would love to tackle that one.
If you're thinking about children all of the time, shouldn't you be going to jail, too? ;-)
Good point. But seeing as how you're obviously thinking about me thinking about children, it's off to Guantanamo for you too, buster.
I think it's worth keeping in mind, though, that Cepeda wasn't voted into the Hall of Fame by the writers. He had to wait five years after his last shot with the BBWAA to have the Veteran's Committee get him in. His humanitarian work, which included working as a "goodwill ambassador" for the Giants, also probably helped to rehabilitate the public image that was previously tarnished by his prior drug charges.
The difference is that no one argues that Cepeda's actions had any effect on the field of play, as is alleged regarding PED.
-The difference is that no one outside of this website gives a #### about the Hall of Merit.
That's unfortunate, since the HoM is one of the great things about this website, possibly the most tangible justification for its existence.
You guys have some interesting threads, and I'm glad you all have fun, but ... really?
Maybe Markusen will show up to elaborate, but my understanding was that it (also) was installed to improve the case of somebody like Buck O'Neil.
Markusen or Jaffe or someone like that knows a lot more about the HOF than me, but I'm pretty certain the character clause long predates the consideration of somebody like O'Neil.
Yeah! You want to make something out of it? :-)
Thanks for the nice words, Andy. I missed your post before.
The BBWOA get to vote for the Hall, and the awards, because when these things started the writers were considered more objective than players, managers and coaches, they saw a whole lot of games and no fans saw very many games. Nowadays, the writers have proven they are no more objective than anyone else, they have proven they know nothing about baseball (Plaske has a vote, I believe) and a fan can see more more games sitting on his couch than a writer going to the ballpark.
The point is, just ignore votes when the voters are idiots.
I have this problem all the time.
Jeff Fiorentino
Eddy Martinez-Esteve
Fiorentino really pulled me out of some dark days in Arizona history.
Not speaking English in Congress, of course.
You know, I had something written up to expand on your comment, but this site does a better job of saying what I was trying to get at, so I'm just going to scrap what I had written and quote them instead:
EDIT: And to get back to the original point of the thread, I support the inclusion of a character clause in the Hall of Fame voting criteria, but would expect it only to matter in borderline cases, or when the character flaw is absolutely massive (typically at the felony level).
And on a player level there is, has been and always will be a distinction between the likes of a Mark McGwire and a no account piece of rat fecal matter like Pete Rose.
I work diligently to refrain from commenting too much on Rose. We are of approximately the same generation, our paths crossed more than a time or two and my dislike for the man has had decades to take shape. Pete Rose is the POSTER BOY for why you have a character clause in the standards. He milked the game for every penny and along the way tried to sabotage the very foundation on which the game itself is played. Honoring that is mind-boggling in its foolishness.
I know the author here is well liked by the BBTF masses so I acknowledge that I run the risk of being branded an outcast. But Pete Rose is scum. He's scum supreme. You could tell Pete he could have another $100 to bet on the ponies but to get it he would have to saw off his mother's right hand and while she's screaming in pain and the blood flies Pete would be telling her, "Mom, once I hit I can buy you a new one!" Pete Rose makes Leo Durocher look like Judge Hardy.
In about ten years some enterprising lad or lass, maybe one of the folks who frequent this site, is going to realize that Pete Rose has dropped off the radar and go looking for that story. And in some sh*tty out of the way locale in Ohio Pete will be living in an unkempt trailer three miles from the third-tier Indian casino where he acts as greeter. And for the promise of a few bucks later and unlimited Jack and cokes now Pete will reveal many of the awful, despicable, lowdown, morally reprehensible, depraved acts of his utterly vulgar existence. He will do with a wink and a grin and promise for more "if the price is right".
And every single person who reads this accounting will sit there mouth agape that a single human being could be so singularly foul of mind, body and soul. Only after a length shower and likely laying down will anyone be able to grasp the enormity of Pete's scurrilous nature.
Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame?
Bah.....
If Raul Mondesi is there he can probably translate for the rest of the deputies.
Harveys, given the general consensus around here about Pete Rose as a person, I don't think you have to worry too much about people branding you an outcast. His induction would be one of those things which would keep me from going to see the Hall of Fame, and I'm sure there are a decent number of people here who have a somewhat similar position when it comes to Rose.
While I agree with you completely on the subject of Charlie Hustle, I think it is worth noting that left to their own devices the BBWAA would have elected Rose overwhelmingly were they not prevented from doing so. I'd say that makes it legitimate to question the utility of the character clause.
Hey Harvey, tell us what you really think of Rose! My only complaint is that you misspelled faecal. If you are going to call someone sh*t, get that spelling right dammit.
I would suspect that the majority of people here think Rose is pond scum.
I thought there were two spellings, both accepted. No?
If they would vote for Rose but not the steroid guys, then that's pathetic.
Before he got nailed for gambling, they almost undoubtedly would have elected him. Even though he had a lot of known issues, he was just so far above the standards for induction, not electing him would have been inconceivable.
After he he was first banned, possibly, since a lot of people seemed to feel that he got a raw deal, and he was so aggressive in his protestations, although just about as many changed their positions to viewing him as a complete dirtbag.
After he admitted that he'd actually gambled while manager, almost certainly not, as those who had opposed him since the suspension had new ammo, and most of those who originally felt that he got a raw deal now felt that he had played them for fools.
Of course, that's just my reading of the situation, and I'm sure others will disagree.
I would suspect so too, but I would also suspect that there would be at least some people who, despite their distaste for Rose, would still argue that he belongs in the Hall of Fame.
Do you mean pre-gambling revelations or post? It's undoubtable he would have been elected if he hadn't run into his betting problems. But even if the HoF hadn't removed his name from consideration, he would not have been elected once he took the deal from Giamatti. He would have gotten more support than his sorry ass deserved from folks who just couldn't believe the Hit King bet on baseball, but there's no way he would have cleared 75 percent.
Posnanski, as most here know, has written a book about the '75 Reds, due out next month. He has made couple of refs already--including one in THT '08--about guys on the Reds of that era talking about Rose as a teammate, helping them out, being good to them, etc. This was one of the reasons Posnanski gives, albeit indirectly, for supporting Rose's induction into Cooperstown.
It will be interesting to see fan/media reaction to that element of Posnanski's book.
I should have been more specific; I believe that Rose would have been elected overwhelmingly in his first year of eligibility had the HOF BOD not declared him ineligible. I don't think the BBWAA would elect him today. But of course, if he'd been enshrined in 1991, you wouldn't be able to unring that bell.
EDIT: there's no way he would have cleared 75 percent.
Well, that's just like, your opinion, man.
Well, that's based on what I read at the time. It seemed there were several distinct groups of HoF voters following the ban from baseball.
1) (the largest group, from what I saw) Believed Pete bet on baseball, and would never vote for him once he accepted the deal from Giamatti.
2) Weren't sure if he bet on baseball, but would not vote for him as long as he was on the ineligible list.
3) Didn't believe he bet on baseball, may or may not have voted for him.
4) Believed he bet on baseball, but would have voted for him if only after he admitted it and apologized.
5) Didn't care whether he bet on baseball. Would vote for him based entirely on his playing days and didn't believe what happened as a manager mattered.
It's possible he might have gained enshrinement if he admitted it, winning over the sizable group 4. At the same time, such an admission may have lost him some support from from Group 3.
When he received his ban, I saw no reason to believe that 75 percent of the voters would have voted to enshrine a guy who was on baseball's ineligible list. When he was placed upon it, that was taken to mean a de facto ban from the HoF.
The keepers of the HOF not only didn't want Pete being into Cooperstown. They weren't interested in his 42% voting results either. So nip the whole thing in the bud with a "tweak" of the standards.
And I believe Rose STILL gets a vote(s). Some writers are just that dumb...............
As I wrote, "and has been written about elsewhere, it's in their interest to keep MLB happy."
Guess you owe me the proverbial Coke......no?
Wow. That's one of the most succinct descriptions of venality that I've ever seen.
No.
None, zero, zip, zilch. Rose was completely alone within MLB in this behavior, as far as all the knowledge we have informs us.
Yup. And I'd say much of the defense of him stemmed from the simple disbelief that someone affiliated with MLB would be stupid enough to gamble. Hell, the long-retired Mickey and Willie got dinged for getting promotional jobs with an Atlantic City Casino.
There is a gap between an active boycott and simply not caring.
To put it into perspective: I'm 27. Let's look over a few of the significant players on this year's Hall ballot:
* Dawson and Trammel both retired when I was 15.
* Morris retired when I was 13.
* Blyleven retired when I was 11.
* Rice retired when I was 8.
In short, when I was a young man watching baseball, a lot of these guys were either in the twilight of their career or simply out of baseball. And I'm just a stat geek in a basement who's never seen Jim Rice play, so obviously I can't have an opinion on him being in the Hall of Fame - so a lot of people have said, anyway.
My point is, if you go ahead and take the top players from my generation's youth - Sosa, McGuire, Bonds, , A-Rod, Clemens - and blackball them all from the Hall of Fame, you're going to lose a lot of people like me. Because you're going to have an entire generation of baseball fans who doesn't have any of their childhood heroes in the hall.
You don't say exactly where you were; it's well known that there are at least three different dialects of WT. Even though I'm basically born and raised (two years in Oregon are the only blackmark on the record), I don't speak enough Spanish to get you through an arrest if they're speaking Texican. If you're a little further north, grasping the analogies is key (think Rather), so it's more a generational thing. Now, if you're ever in trouble in one of the real cities, I can help (though why I'd help an A's fan is a relevant question.)
Except he did. Every bit of his testimony as near as I can tell. He denied using steroids (excuse me "performance-enhancing drugs"), he supported testing, said he "pretty much" supported federal legislation if required.
On a side note: the character clause isn't keeping Rose out of the HoF. The writers were never given the chance to decide if Roses' character was sufficient to deny him entry. Getting rid of the character clause would not open the door to Rose.
9/9/9 actually.
(Maybe Dick Allen. Maybe. But Allen's on-field record, while excellent from a sabermetric point of view, isn't nearly as much so from a sportswriter point of view. His career wasn't overly long and he reached no milestones. And he didn't play very many full seasons -- regardless of the reason why -- and it's full seasons that generally make a player's reputation.)
There is one piece of evidence: Joe Jackson. The "Rose rule" had the side effect of also making Jackson ineligible, but no such rule had been needed for 50 years - neither the writers nor the VC were ever going to let him in, even though he was technically eligible. (And if not Jackson, then not Cicotte either, nor Hal Chase.)
But the Cobb-Speaker game-throwing accusation? Nope, not going there. Accept a not guilty finding by the commissioner's office at face value.
On the flip side, I think you'll find occasional scattered votes for some player who was a war hero or otherwise supposed to be of exceptional character, but wasn't actually all that good a ballplayer. But that's scattered votes - no one like that has ever come close to election.
Are there any fans like that?
I mean the guys voting on the Hall of Fame are more often than not, idiots. They use their vote to grandstand and justify their profession - in my mind I just can't ever see myself taking it seriously.
Pete just slept with ugly women and cheated at every opportunity for monetary gain while failing to ever tell anyone the truth.
So he has that going for him....
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main