NFBC Message Boards

Posted: **Tue Jul 30, 2013 9:42 am**

I'm a baseball fan. Yet, I don't think of the Hall of Fame as something sacred. Major League Baseball has misused the Hall of Fame. When not getting enough older players in, they invent committees to get them in. When not having enough black players, they invent committees to get them in. When not having enough off field personalities, more committees and blah blah blah.

In recent years, MLB has used the Hall of Fame as a wood shed. They take off their belt and send any players who had something to do with steroids and PEDS and whip them soundly. So soundly that these players now almost dread the Hall of Fame votes instead of looking forward to it. These are players that should have been punished during their playing days, but most weren't. So MLB has chosen to use the Hall of Fame as 'daddy' as in, "WAIT TILL YOUR DADDY GETS HOME!'
This looks to be an every year practice for years to come.

The Hall of Fame is just plain wrong in keeping these cheaters out. In keeping out cheaters from the steroid era, clean players will be affected. We don't really know who is clean, do we?
Is Craig Biggio?
Is Jeff Bagwell?
Is Frank Thomas?
Is Albert Pujols?

We all have opinions, but we don't KNOW. And that is the problem. We have a bunch of 'baseball writers' making guesses as to who used and who did not. 'Baseball writers' is in quotations because some of these voters are no longer baseball writers or even follow the sport. A writer last year made a public relinquishing of his ballot public, because he did not follow baseball as much as a required voter should, but the Hall did not react. They didn't care.
So what we have is similar to some writers watching ESPN for their opinions.

Next year, Biggio (again), Thomas, Greg Maddux, and Tom Glavine will be on the ballot.
Most fans think that Maddux is a shoo-in. He should be. But, what if one ESPN report links Maddux to a steroid player or a vague reference is made inferring that Maddux could have used? The importance being on the word 'could'.
The Hall of Fame has changed from a group looking at the numbers great players put on their stat sheet to deciding if numbers are 'real'.
Beyond Reasonable doubt works in our courts, doubt alone, works for the Hall.
The Hall of Fame votes have turned to Hall of Blame votes.

It doesn't have to be that way. A room at the Hall should be opened for all steroid era players. Bonds, Sosa, Biggio, Bagwell, Maddux, etc all played together during this era. They should be together in the Hall as well.
Let the fans who go to see the plaques decide who was guilty and who was not.
The argument against this would be that the cheaters are rewarded or acknowledged.
Yes they are. Eventually, somebody from the steroid era is going to be voted in, then admit that they used. Or worse, it'll be uncovered by a reporter or the feds or MLB.
In the mean time, clean players are not voted in because they 'could' have used.
The whole process is stupid. MLB got this one wrong. These players should have been punished long ago. Now in punishing the cheating players by not letting them in the Hall of Fame, some clean players may not see their dreams realized.

I write and e-mail the Hall of Fame often. In my mind, Shoeless Joe Jackson should be in the Hall of Fame. Before dying, I'd like to see the Hall of Fame right the wrong of keeping him out of the Hall of Fame.
I've written much about Jackson.
Dummy Hoy should be in the Hall of Fame. People say it's a shame that Marvin Miller isn't in the Hall because he changed baseball.
Did he change it for the better? Having the wealth go from owner to player?
I don't know.
But, I do know that Dummy Hoy, a good player in his own right changed baseball for the better. I've written about Hoy here before.
Hoy contracted Meningitis at the age of three which resulted in deafness. There was no political correctness in the late 1800's so folks called him 'Dummy'. Most deaf folks were. His real name was William.
Being deaf did not hold Hoy back from playing baseball. He was one of the finest outfielders of the late 1800's.
He scored over 100 runs nine times. When retiring he led all outielders in put outs and chances.
In being deaf, Hoy would swivel his head at the plate to see if the call was a ball or strike, reading the umpire's lips.
Soon, a signal was devised where the umpire would raise his right arm for strikes for Dummy. Also the right hand would be used for outs while a spreading of the hands would signal safe.
Hoy was also instrumental in getting signals from coaches. At the time, verbal signals were mostly used for players.
Soon, hand signals would be used by all teams as they are today.
Dummy Hoy changed the game. He should be recognized, but isn't.
Stupid Hall.

I have to admit that the Hall of Fame interest plummeted for me in how they handled Ron Santo and his admission into the Hall. Everybody knew that somehow, some way, Santo would get into the Hall of Fame.
And he did, one year too late.
It was the Hall of Fame who denied him seeing this happen while he was alive. There are no 'do over's' for this mistake.
No mulligans.
Santo was robbed.
Pure and simple. He was robbed of the chance to be inducted with his friends Ernie Banks and Billy Williams while alive. Williams, Santo, Banks, that was the gauntlet pitchers had to navigate. Terrific times.
The Hall screwed this one up badly. So badly, that folks like me, care a lot less what the Hall does now.

So, mostly I write this as an opinion. I'm not rabid about getting a wing for steroid era players. I just think it's a good idea.
The Hall will do what the Hall does.
As a kid, the Hall of Fame was a Palace reserved for only the best ball players. Ball players who have changed our lives. Ball players who have changed the game.
Now, it has become a place where cheaters are being sorted out.
These cheaters have also changed our lives.
These cheaters have also changed the game.
The Hall of Fame is a Museum.
And like a museum of the old west would show likenesses of Wyatt Earp or Buffalo Bill, they would also have to show the bad guys like Jesse and Frank James.
This whole era has to be defined. Good and bad.
It's a part of baseball. And for the Hall of Fame to ignore it, is wrong.
Ignore, in this case, is short for ignorance.

Posted: **Tue Jul 30, 2013 1:16 pm**

If only one thing was made perfectly clear to me during the last HOF vote it is that, Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire and Roger Clemens will NEVER get into the HOF. And that goes for you to Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez and Ryan Braun.

And when I say never, I mean never.

No quarantined wing, no special PED asterisks on the plaque, no ad hock committee, nothing. The HOF has a longggg memory, and I don’t believe the passing of time will soften those memories. Ask Joe Jackson to see if I’m wrong about that.

I know of course that it’s the baseball writers that vote in the players, not the HOF board of directors, but they aren’t voting these players in any time soon.

The Baseball Writers of America own the keys to the front door of the Hall, and the Rafael Palmerio’s of the world aren’t getting a copy.

And for those of you that think maybe 2013 was just a First Ballot punishment and that we need to see where the vote totals go next year, forget it. We need look no further than Mark McGwire’s vote totals over the years to give us some perspective.

Last January was the seventh time McGwire has been on the ballot, it was also the lowest vote total (16.9%) that he has ever received. He is not moving up with time and perspective, as some have suggested will happen with Bonds and Clemens, he is moving down.

The writers, many of whom in their own way were at least indirectly responsible for the popularity of the “steroid era”, have now determined that they are the moral compass. They don’t like the fact that they were being used as tools, indirectly or not, to promote the “chicks dig the long ball era”, and now they have taken upon themselves to determine what is right and what is wrong.

Sound like a bad deal? Too bad, because the system isn’t changing and you and I don’t get a vote.

While I think fans would always like to see someone go in each year and the writers got some minor heat for not putting anyone through this year, the next couple of ballots will give the writers and the HOF itself plenty of cover to avoid calls for any changes to the voting procedures.

In just the next six years (2014-19), I can see as many as 13 players getting elected into the HOF.
C Biggio
G Maddux
T Glavine
F Thomas
J Kent
M Mussina
R Johnson
P Martinez
J Smoltz
M Rivera
K Griffey Jr
T Hoffman

Electing that many players from one era will allow the writers to easily stay away from the “steroid” guys and the so-called “steroid era”.

However, if there was one way for the “steroid” players to get in, it would be this. A large group of current HOF players would have to stand up en-mass and say that only the numbers matter, not how they were obtained. If Frank Robinson and Hank Aaron and Billy Williams and Johnny Bench and other Hall of Fame players from the 60’s and 70’s said it was ok, then Bonds and Clemens might have a chance; but I don’t believe that will ever happen.

The HOF is a club, not a Columbia House Record’s or Members Only Jacket type of club that anyone can join, but an Augusta National, Disney 33 type of club. Membership is exclusive, and current members aren’t necessarily keen to new members getting in. All you have to do is look at the voting from the Veterans committee as it was composed from 2003-2007. The committee was made up of all living members of the HOF and some special honorees. They didn’t vote anyone in. No one. It's very hard for anyone to meet Joe Morgan's standards of a HOFer, and if you don't believe me, just ask him, he'll be happy to tell you how great he; oops, I mean his era of players were.

So maybe 20 or 30 years from now the HOF will have a special PED Era Exhibit that will house McGwire’s 70th HR bat or Bonds’ 762nd HR ball or BioGen’s payment and shot list from Braun, but that is the closest that these players will ever come to getting into the HOF without buying a ticket.

Posted: **Tue Jul 30, 2013 2:06 pm**

If that is so, Russ, it becomes incomplete.
The Hall of Fame is already incomplete. They use it as punishment against players.
That, that is stupid.
These players should be punished on the field. Where it belongs.

I have never been to the Hall of Fame. That would be a costly trip for my wife and I.
But someday, if given the chance to go, I want to see the complete museum. I want to know what happened in every era. I don't want names deleted. Information is the key, not the spanking of a player who has done wrong.
I want to know about Shoeless Joe Jackson. I want to know about Pete Rose. I want to know about Barry Bonds.
The thought of writers deciding who I get to see in a museum galls me. Especially when they're wrong. And they are wrong A LOT.

In the 20'$, some baseball organizations had players pull teeth, thinking they'd become better players.
In the 30' and 40's, it was caffeine through coffee and other means. In the 50's and 60's, 70's, and 80's, it was greenies or speed, or anything else that can help players. Like steroids and PEDS, some took them, some didn't.
As long as baseball and money and ego's are around, players will cheat.
Have they just gone too far now?
Or is it because our technology has changed and there are no secrets?

I don't care for Barry Bonds. I don't.
I think he's a stinky man.
But nobody could take away the fact that Barry Bonds was the best damned baseball player on steroids that this world will ever see.
And I know how that sounds.
Still, we can't sweep it under the carpet like the Hall of Fame is doing.
IT HAPPENED!
I saw it with my own eyes.
It's not an exhibit.
It's an era.
And kids from future generations should not dismiss what happened this era or have to google it. They should learn from the plaques and stories within the Museum.
Not including them, simply because the Hall voters are making up for a mistake is stupid.
But then again, the Hall is stupid for letting folks not involved with baseball the right to vote anyway.

I've gone from revering the Hall of Fame and who's in the Hall of Fame, to shaking my head at who's NOT in the Hall of Fame.
It's a place that has lost a lot of meaning for me.
Do I care?
Sure, I wouldn't be writing this if I didn't.
Still, voting players on the degree and reckoning on whether or how much they cheated or not is an exercise in futility.
Something right up the Hall of Fame's alley.

Russ, if you're happy with the Hall and how they're keeping out players.
Good. They're doing it. You must be happy.
To me, the process is as tainted as the players that are kept out.
My wife's favorite adage is, 'Two wrongs do not make a right'. It applies.

Posted: **Tue Jul 30, 2013 2:52 pm**

[quote="Navel Lint"]

C Biggio
G Maddux
T Glavine
F Thomas
J Kent
M Mussina
R Johnson
P Martinez
J Smoltz
M Rivera
K Griffey Jr
T Hoffman

Electing that many players from one era will allow the writers to easily stay away from the “steroid” guys and the so-called “steroid era”./quote]

Before this witch hunt, the players listed above could have eased back after retirement and hope they got elected on the first ballot.
No worries.
Now, if guilty of PEDS they live in fear of being found out.
If innocent, they live in fear of guilt by association or somebody telling a lie about him.
Never at ease. That's not fair.
Are you 100 % sure these players are clean?
Should writers determine that?
Why?

Posted: **Tue Jul 30, 2013 5:35 pm**

DOUGHBOYS wrote:
Navel Lint wrote:

C Biggio
G Maddux
T Glavine
F Thomas
J Kent
M Mussina
R Johnson
P Martinez
J Smoltz
M Rivera
K Griffey Jr
T Hoffman

Electing that many players from one era will allow the writers to easily stay away from the “steroid” guys and the so-called “steroid era”./quote]

Before this witch hunt, the players listed above could have eased back after retirement and hope they got elected on the first ballot.
No worries.
Now, if guilty of PEDS they live in fear of being found out.
If innocent, they live in fear of guilt by association or somebody telling a lie about him.
Never at ease. That's not fair.
Are you 100 % sure these players are clean?
Should writers determine that?
Why?

Are the above players all clean? I don't know as a fact that they are. There is one player in particular that I have doubts about and I would love to see info come out if there were any. I disliked this guy as a player and I care for him even less now.

That being said, when I look at the HOF ballots that will be voted on in the next 6 years, these are the names that I see getting in ( also possibly J Morris, but I didn't want to lump him in with the above list for obvious reasons).

Yes, I do think the writers should do the voting. Will there be some inequities? Probably. Some player (Piazza???) may be kept out unfairly. But, I can live with that. It might not be "fair", but not getting into the HOF is just an honor that isn't bestowed, it doesn't take away their livelihood, it's not like they are going to the gas chamber for a crime they didn't commit because someone voted the wrong way. Again, that might not be fair, but thats life.

So will the writers get it correct every time when it comes to PED users/non-users? No way! But then again, how does that really make it any different than them getting it right or wrong based purely on stats. I know plenty of people that think Tony Oliva, Vada Pinson, and Gil Hodges should be in the HOF, maybe it's not fair that they have been kept out, but that doesn't mean we change the system.

How would we change it anyway?
Fan Vote??? Please, we'd end up with Tino Martinez, Joe Carter, and Kent Hrbek in the HOF
Current HOF inductees voting??? They have already proven that very few can meet their standards. I mean, Maddux and Rivera would get in, but a borderline guy like Mussina, no way would he get in. When you are a member of an exclusive club, like the HOF is, you have strong incentives to keep it exclusive, and so that doesn't entice you to give your vote away generously.

No, the writers aren't perfect, far from it in fact, but it's probably the best system we could have.

Posted: **Tue Jul 30, 2013 6:51 pm**

DOUGHBOYS wrote:If that is so, Russ, it becomes incomplete.
The Hall of Fame is already incomplete. They use it as punishment against players.
That, that is stupid.
These players should be punished on the field. Where it belongs.

I have never been to the Hall of Fame. That would be a costly trip for my wife and I.
But someday, if given the chance to go, I want to see the complete museum. I want to know what happened in every era. I don't want names deleted. Information is the key, not the spanking of a player who has done wrong.
I want to know about Shoeless Joe Jackson. I want to know about Pete Rose. I want to know about Barry Bonds.
The thought of writers deciding who I get to see in a museum galls me. Especially when they're wrong. And they are wrong A LOT.

In the 20'$, some baseball organizations had players pull teeth, thinking they'd become better players.
In the 30' and 40's, it was caffeine through coffee and other means. In the 50's and 60's, 70's, and 80's, it was greenies or speed, or anything else that can help players. Like steroids and PEDS, some took them, some didn't.
As long as baseball and money and ego's are around, players will cheat.
Have they just gone too far now?
Or is it because our technology has changed and there are no secrets?

I don't care for Barry Bonds. I don't.
I think he's a stinky man.
But nobody could take away the fact that Barry Bonds was the best damned baseball player on steroids that this world will ever see.
And I know how that sounds.
Still, we can't sweep it under the carpet like the Hall of Fame is doing.
IT HAPPENED!
I saw it with my own eyes.
It's not an exhibit.
It's an era.
And kids from future generations should not dismiss what happened this era or have to google it. They should learn from the plaques and stories within the Museum.
Not including them, simply because the Hall voters are making up for a mistake is stupid.
But then again, the Hall is stupid for letting folks not involved with baseball the right to vote anyway.

I've gone from revering the Hall of Fame and who's in the Hall of Fame, to shaking my head at who's NOT in the Hall of Fame.
It's a place that has lost a lot of meaning for me.
Do I care?
Sure, I wouldn't be writing this if I didn't.
Still, voting players on the degree and reckoning on whether or how much they cheated or not is an exercise in futility.
Something right up the Hall of Fame's alley.

Russ, if you're happy with the Hall and how they're keeping out players.
Good. They're doing it. You must be happy.
To me, the process is as tainted as the players that are kept out.
My wife's favorite adage is, 'Two wrongs do not make a right'. It applies.

I've been in and out all day and I actually just saw this post now.

What you're talking about is a museum. Yes, I know it's called the Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum; and all the things you are talking about are covered in the museum. Balls, bats, jerseys, books, players (yes, even P Rose). I even suggested in my first post that there should be an exhibit that covers the steroid players and the era they represent, and I'm sure it will happen some day.

The history of the game is covered in the museum.

That is different though then induction into the Hall of Fame. I don't want to see a Juan Gonzalez plaque hanging on the wall next to Ernie Banks' plaque down Induction Row.

The history of the game is in the museum; Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire and Roger Clemens will be in the Museum, but I don't need to see them standing up at a podium some hot July afternoon telling me how they played the game the right way and for the love of the game and then watching their plaque get screwed into the wall for all entirety next to Jim Palmer's or Willie McCovey's plaque. No thank you

Posted: **Wed Jul 31, 2013 5:50 am**

Good stuff Russel and Dough. I see any player that never tested positive or convicted getting in at sometime. I also see a new generation of "younger" sportswriters who "vote" now and other young ones replacing the hard liners voting more and more for the ones who did use or suspected of using. The younger generation does not view things as the older generation. Their values are "corrupted" IMO - its a live and live process. They fight for making Pot legal, gay marriage legal (dont care one way or another), they fight for all the wrong things it seems these days. They could care less really about Joe Jackson, any player they don't know. However they will vote blindly in the future years for players who have numbers. Msot of them will go in some day, long after I am gone.

Posted: **Wed Jul 31, 2013 8:49 am**

Ty Cobb's plaque is probably in the same area of the Hall as Lou Gehrig.
Gehrig had the morals that we want for ourselves and our kids.
Cobb, a KKK member would beat up black folks who came close to him. His gambling was overlooked as acceptable, while a fellow like Joe Jackson gets made an example of.
I guess that's fair.

Tris Speaker was known as an everyday gambler. Somebody that like to have 'a little extra' on each game.
Pete Rose is banned for the same thing.
I guess that's fair.

Barry Bonds used steroids, there is little doubt. His reasons were ego driven.
Mike Piazza maybe, possibly, could have used steroids. We better keep both out.
I guess that's fair.

Some writer's live and breathe baseball. They dig deep. Use their sources and report to us the newest happenings in the baseball world.
My Aunt Ruth covered baseball 35 years ago for the Detroit Tigers. She moved on and hasn't paid attention to baseball for 20 years. (Only an example: Not true)
Each of these writer's votes count the same for the Hall of Fame.
I guess that's fair.

For years and years the Hall of Fame and Major League Baseball did not recognize negro players or their leagues. Even after black players were accepted into baseball. It took 24 years after Jackie Robinson broke the race barrier that writers would even recognize the talents of those in the negro leagues.
I guess that's fair.

By all means, let's keep the Hall of Fame the way it is.
A wonderful system. Keep steroid players out.
If it is at the cost of clean players that maybe, possibly, could have, so be it.
A lifetime of clean work and not being recognized.
I guess that's fair.

Posted: **Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:56 am**

DOUGHBOYS wrote:Ty Cobb's plaque is probably in the same area of the Hall as Lou Gehrig.
Gehrig had the morals that we want for ourselves and our kids.
Cobb, a KKK member would beat up black folks who came close to him. His gambling was overlooked as acceptable, while a fellow like Joe Jackson gets made an example of.
I guess that's fair.

Tris Speaker was known as an everyday gambler. Somebody that like to have 'a little extra' on each game.
Pete Rose is banned for the same thing.
I guess that's fair.

Barry Bonds used steroids, there is little doubt. His reasons were ego driven.
Mike Piazza maybe, possibly, could have used steroids. We better keep both out.
I guess that's fair.

Some writer's live and breathe baseball. They dig deep. Use their sources and report to us the newest happenings in the baseball world.
My Aunt Ruth covered baseball 35 years ago for the Detroit Tigers. She moved on and hasn't paid attention to baseball for 20 years. (Only an example: Not true)
Each of these writer's votes count the same for the Hall of Fame.
I guess that's fair.

For years and years the Hall of Fame and Major League Baseball did not recognize negro players or their leagues. Even after black players were accepted into baseball. It took 24 years after Jackie Robinson broke the race barrier that writers would even recognize the talents of those in the negro leagues.
I guess that's fair.

By all means, let's keep the Hall of Fame the way it is.
A wonderful system. Keep steroid players out.
If it is at the cost of clean players that maybe, possibly, could have, so be it.
A lifetime of clean work and not being recognized.
I guess that's fair.

You want me to feel bad that Joe Jackson isn't in the HOF? I don't. Contrary to the belief of some, he had his day on the HOF ballot, he didn't get in. Hell, if he had gotten in he would probably be just a footnote in baseball history known only to a us few. As it stands now, he is probably the most well known early 20th century player among the population at-large behind only Ruth.

I do think that the HOF and Museum F'ked Rose. But it wasn't the writers. I believe if Rose was on the ballot he would get in. But again, not the voters fault.

Are there some writers voting for the HOF that don't cover baseball on a daily basis? Sure. Doesn't necessarily make them less qualified (although a very small percentage may be). This old canard of unqualified voters has been around a lot longer than the steroid era.

And so now I'll ask you essentially the same question you asked me.

If not the writers voting for the HOF, what should the system be?

It's always easier to point out the flaws, I pointed some out myself, but coming up with the correct solution is much harder. Please tell us what the Fair system is, but remember, this isn't Little League where everyone gets a trophy.

Posted: **Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:53 am**

Alright.
First though, you are wrong about Joe Jackson.
He never had a chance to be on a ballot. He received two votes in the original voting and there was a 'gentleman's agreement' that he would not be included thereafter. He was railroaded.
In 1991, he was put on the MLB Restricted List which forbids him from being put in the Hall, even by committee.
And yeah, when a guy hits .408 as a rookie and has a lifetime batting average of .356 does not get into a Hall of Fame, it's more than just a 'footnote'.
Lessen his impact all you want, Russ, by believing he gets more publicity from not being in the Hall of Fame.
He was a player that Babe Ruth emulated and copied.
You are just plain wrong.

As for fixes, these would be mine-

First-
Major League Baseball has to quit using the Hall as punishment. These writers should not have to gauge ANY players moral compass. Only what takes place on the field.

Second-
The Hall should be detached from Major League Baseball. It should be like our fantasy leagues. Royalties are paid and their is a partnership, but baseball should have absolutely no say as to who gets in or who is on the ballot for the Hall of Fame.

Third-
The Hall strips all current voters of their vote.

Fourth-
The Hall selects top writers who are still involved with baseball.
There are hundreds of writers who have the option to vote on Hall of Fame players. As mentioned, some of these writers are no longer involved with baseball.
Streamline the process to those that are neck deep in baseball like we are.

Fifth-
These votes should ALL be public.
Now, it is hard to ascertain who gets a vote, much less how they voted.

Sixth-
The right to vote for writers is updated and scrutinized every three years by the Hall. If a writer has retired or is no longer involved with the baseball beat, his credentials are taken and given to a more worthy writer.

It's just not that tough.

Posted: **Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:57 am**

Russel, I read a book about a year ago at the library that was a great read about the Hall of Fame and all of it's problems.
I'll go there this week to fetch the title for you. It will really be an eye opener for especially you, someone that exhibits childlike faith in the Hall and puts so much credence into the Hall and its decisions.

Posted: **Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:15 pm**

DOUGHBOYS wrote:Alright.
First though, you are wrong about Joe Jackson.
He never had a chance to be on a ballot. He received two votes in the original voting and there was a 'gentleman's agreement' that he would not be included thereafter. He was railroaded.
In 1991, he was put on the MLB Restricted List which forbids him from being put in the Hall, even by committee.
And yeah, when a guy hits .408 as a rookie and has a lifetime batting average of .356 does not get into a Hall of Fame, it's more than just a 'footnote'.
Lessen his impact all you want, Russ, by believing he gets more publicity from not being in the Hall of Fame.
He was a player that Babe Ruth emulated and copied.
You are just plain wrong.

You want to use the euphemism of “gentleman’s agreement”, that’s fine, I won’t disagree. You want to say he was railroaded, agreed!

Unless I’m wrong, and you can correct me on this, Jackson was put on MLB’s “banned/restricted” list in 1920. It was in 1991 that the HOF and Museum changed their voting rules. While the new rules undoubtedly affected Jackson, there is no doubt that the new rules were put into place to prevent voting for Pete Rose.

Are Jackson’s stats Hall worthy? Of Course! Great player.

On the other hand, I’m not interested in litigating a case from 90 years ago. It’s like people writing books about the Lincoln assassination today claiming they have new evidence. Nope, it’s still John Wilkes Booth.
As for fixes, these would be mine-

First-
Major League Baseball has to quit using the Hall as punishment. These writers should not have to gauge ANY players moral compass. Only what takes place on the field.

You want to call it a punishment. Ok, maybe it is, in the sense that they don’t get an extra scoop of ice cream on their apple pie.

It’s true that they don’t get a plaque on the wall. They don’t get to write HOF after their name and charge $50 more because of it at a card show. They will still have their place in the Museum and their story will be told. Would I feel any different about Bonds if he were inducted? No.
Second-
The Hall should be detached from Major League Baseball. It should be like our fantasy leagues. Royalties are paid and their is a partnership, but baseball should have absolutely no say as to who gets in or who is on the ballot for the Hall of Fame.

Third-
The Hall strips all current voters of their vote.

Fourth-
The Hall selects top writers who are still involved with baseball.
There are hundreds of writers who have the option to vote on Hall of Fame players. As mentioned, some of these writers are no longer involved with baseball.
Streamline the process to those that are neck deep in baseball like we are.

Yikes. You want the Hall to hand pick voters??? This is what happened with their special committees, and we know how bad that has turned out. That’s how players like Rick Ferrell got in. “You vote for my guy, I’ll vote for your guy” back room dealing.

And what makes one voter more qualified than another? The fact that they go to games every day? I’ll tell you, if I had to choose between some retired writer that sits on his couch all night watching the MLBNetwork and a “neck deep” beat reporter that covers the same team 162 games a season, I could make a good case for the former over the later.

Your idea stems out of this ridiculous notion that there are hoards of unqualified voters out there. If anything, considering the total number of writers now voting and the endless avenue of information and resources available to all voters, my guess is that the percentage of uninformed voters is probably at an all-time low.
Fifth-
These votes should ALL be public.
Now, it is hard to ascertain who gets a vote, much less how they voted.

I Agree.
Sixth-
The right to vote for writers is updated and scrutinized every three years by the Hall. If a writer has retired or is no longer involved with the baseball beat, his credentials are taken and given to a more worthy writer.

You’re going to lose some awfully qualified voters because they don’t write for a living anymore. Note to John Thorn….don’t ever retire.
It's just not that tough.

Got it. Tell voters to only look at the numbers. Hand pick the voters. Scrutinize their ballot (anyone that votes for Aaron Sele loses their right to vote). Take away the ballot when you retire because you don't know anything anymore. That is easy. Bonds and McGwire and Clemens and Hoy and Jackson should be inducted very soon.

Posted: **Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:37 pm**

DOUGHBOYS wrote: It will really be an eye opener for especially you, someone that exhibits childlike faith in the Hall and puts so much credence into the Hall and its decisions.

Posted: **Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:43 pm**

I did misspeak about the writers. Instead of ALL BBWOA getting votes. They, the writers would select their top writers.

Have at me.....

Posted: **Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:56 pm**

DOUGHBOYS wrote:I did misspeak about the writers. Instead of ALL BBWOA getting votes. They, the writers would select their top writers.

Have at me.....

Can't. I'm taking my childlike faith (it actually applies in this case)

and I'm going to the Cubs game tonight.

Posted: **Sat Aug 10, 2013 7:55 am**

DOUGHBOYS wrote:Russel, I read a book about a year ago at the library that was a great read about the Hall of Fame and all of it's problems.
I'll go there this week to fetch the title for you. It will really be an eye opener for especially you, someone that exhibits childlike faith in the Hall and puts so much credence into the Hall and its decisions.

My kids are part of a local library summer program. Recently during a rare day off that coincided with the program schedule, I went along with my wife and kids to the library. While the kids were busy, I found myself naturally migrating towards the sports book section. I ended up taking out a book on the Hall of Fame. It was written by Bill James and is called "Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame?" It was written in the 90's, so it's not that current. However, it is an interesting read on the start of the Hall of Fame, the way the standards for entry developed, and what's wrong with those standards.

I'm personally of the belief that the Hall of Fame should have been more exclusive, saved for the indisputable immortals of the game that transcended the sport. The Ruth's, Cobb's, Williams, DiMaggio's, Mays, Aaron's, Mantles, Koufax's, Gibson's, and of course Seaver's of the games and players of their ilk. Of course, this can never be. That ship sailed long ago. And because of that the parameters for entry have been a never ending changing line.

I don't believe the confirmed or undisputed steroid users should be allowed in. I believe they harmed the legacy of the game more than they helped. It's a personal feeling, but it's what I believe. For now, those who hold the key to entry seem to agree.

Posted: **Thu Aug 15, 2013 10:56 am**

I know my point of view is not shared by many. I also think less of the Hall of Fame than most baseball fans.
Like most fans now, I used to revere the place and the players that got in.
I don't anymore.
They kept most black ball players out for as long as possible. They did not even recognize Negro League players. Then, in the midst of black players becoming a fumbled political football, it seemed even bat boys from Negro Leagues were admitted.

The Hall is human like us. They make mistakes. I get that.
At the same time, so do ball players.
Ty Cobb gambled and was a racist. Tris Speaker the same. Rogers Hornsby gambled so much that he lived paycheck to paycheck. Babe Ruth was a probable alcoholic. So was Mickey Mantle. Both, along with many others played in games while intoxicated or hung over.
The press hid most of these transgressions. Major League Baseball hid all of these transgressions.
I certainly cannot fathom MLB's hit's leader being excluded from this club for something done as a Manager. Something that Cobb and Speaker did every day.

The Hall of Fame does not take into account what these players did on the field. They also take into account their morals. And that is their biggest mistake.
Barry Bonds is an ass. I know that. But he was the best player of his time.
In an era where it is estimated that 25% to 75% of players were cheating. He was the best cheater.
And for being the best cheater, he is not penalized by baseball, but by the Hall of Fame.
There is something so wrong in that.
I don't look forward to the day when Bonds makes an acceptance speech either. I probably won't watch like millions others who have that choice.
But, the truth remains, he was one of the best players in an era full of players like themselves.
To keep him out or to keep a player like Biggio or Bagwell out for MAYBE cheating is stupid.

If Bonds had cheated in the early years, his cheating would have been hidden by newspapers and MLB.
Timing is key. It was ok for Cobb and Speaker to gamble. Not Rose.
If Rose had been caught gambling AFTER his induction, MLB would have done the right thing. They would have thrown Rose out of baseball, yet his plaque would still be in Cooperstown.
Timing is everything.
OJ Simpson, in most minds committed the ultimate sin, murder.
Yes, his plaque is still in the football Hall of Fame. Only because the murders took place AFTER his induction.
Andhet should be in the football Hall as Rose should be in the baseball Hall.
Let the public think what they want as they look at those plaques.
Just give us the plaques to look at. The Hall of Fame is not a 'Miss Congeniality' race.
It is for what players did on the field, not off.
In Canton, I'll think of OJ breaking tackles, not murder.
In Cooperstown, I'd think of Rose with that short swing getting more hits, not gambling.
Isn't that ok for just one visit?

Again, I know I'm in the minority. And in looking at players like McGwire's stats, I don't think I'd let him or others like him in, based on steroid era comps, but players like Bonds and Clemens and others should go in.
I think of ARod as scum of the earth. There is absolutely nothing I like about the man. Still, I would give him my vote.
We have to separate personal feelings for players aside. It was an era full of cheaters. To guess who cheated, who did not, and who 'could have' is truly folly.

Ok, I'll shut my yapper on this subject

Thanks for the listen.

NFBC Message Boards

Hall of Blame?

Hall of Blame?

Re: Hall of Blame?

Re: Hall of Blame?

Re: Hall of Blame?

Re: Hall of Blame?

Re: Hall of Blame?

Re: Hall of Blame?

Re: Hall of Blame?

Re: Hall of Blame?

Re: Hall of Blame?

Re: Hall of Blame?

Re: Hall of Blame?

Re: Hall of Blame?

Re: Hall of Blame?

Re: Hall of Blame?

Re: Hall of Blame?

Re: Hall of Blame?