TR Forums

So we all know what happened with the hall of fame announcement yesterday. Nobody gets in this year. And thanks to the goofy voting rules in which you can only pick 10 guys, there will be a huge backlog of players worthy of being in the hall for years to come. Not that it matters - too many voting members of the BBWAA (10-year+ members only) want to play judge and jury on so many guys that plenty of clean ones will get the shaft as well. I think that's what happened to Craig Biggio yesterday, for sure, and potentially other guys who have not ever been officially linked to anything and therefore have no need for acquittals.

And then I found this interesting piece by ESPN's Jayson Stark asking the question: is the HoF a museum in which all of baseball's history is told, or is it a holy shrine for the "angels of baseball", as he put it? If it's the former, it's missing an awful lot, and if it's the latter it includes far too many racists, drunks, physically abusive people, amphetamines users, and so on.

And he's right. It can't be both. Unfortunately, the 75% requirement allows some to sit as judge and jury. Too bad they couldn't be bothered to investigate when these guys were playing. There's no room for journalism for today's players, either, it's all looking back and pontificating.

So what say you, nerds?

I must admit that I'm torn on this one. I can see letting some of the roiders in, but I'd lump Bonds & Clemens with Pete Rose in the "not ever" category. Jayson Stark is right on one point, though: if it's a shrine there's already a whole bunch of unworthy people there (c.f. Ty Cobb).

And yes, Biggio & Piazza got screwed.

Why does Pete Rose get a "not ever" anyway? He gambled on sports, big deal. Until evidence can be shown that he did something to tank his team and link it to a bet (like the NBA referee scandal) I don't see the issue. And yes, if he did something to throw games, I agree he should be banned like the 1919 White Sox.

Bonds and Clemens...man I'm torn in a way. Both went up on perjury trials and both were acquitted. Both times it was "did you knowingly take steroids" and supposedly they didn't lie when they said no. They were able to convince at least some folks that they didn't know. Sure, other circumstancial evidence implicates that they took something. Still, they're a part of history and history should be documented in the museum.

And if Ken Burns is to be believed there's already at least one PED user in the HoF. If he didn't think it was true, it would have made sense to leave it out of the 10th Inning. Since it's in there, then at least he believes it.

If you think PED use isn't prevalent in pro level sports I have a bridge to sell you. Stuff like insulin injections and HGH are nearly impossible to test for and can offer real, beneficial results when it comes to increasing performance. AAS at this point are old hat and not as favored (largely because of the fact they're easier to test for). I *suspect* it's more common among older pro athletes trying to prolong a career but that's just a guess.

They all get in or none of them do. I don't care much either way.

Pete Rose better not get in before Shoeless Joe Jackson.

idchafee wrote:

Pete Rose better not get in before Shoeless Joe Jackson.

Yes. One of the very best hitters of his era, though by being banned he didn't have time to naturally decline like so many do.

derFunkenstein wrote:

idchafee wrote:

Pete Rose better not get in before Shoeless Joe Jackson.

Yes. One of the very best hitters of his era, though by being banned he didn't have time to naturally decline like so many do.

This came up at work today, and a buddy of mine came up with a good solution to the Pete Rose situation. He gets in the 1st chance after he dies. he got a lifetime ban, once he's dead the ban ends.

Of course using that logic Shoeless Joe should be in