Bumping this for our new #Bags4HOF podcast. Obviously I'm biased, but I really enjoyed it: https://soundcloud.com/red-orange-report/red-orange-report-11
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>For anyone missing it, there's a lovely back-and-forth right now between <a href="https://twitter.com/Bags4HoF">@Bags4HoF</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/jeffpearlman">@jeffpearlman</a>. Yes, about you-know-what. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Astros?src=hash">#Astros</a></p>— Ben DuBose (@BenDuBose) <a href="https://twitter.com/BenDuBose/status/535849519854792704">November 21, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
It's such a cop out to say that you know something but 100% of the evidence is off the record. Some people just shouldn't have HOF votes.
The HOF should take it upon themselves to come up with hard/fast requirements that eliminates all the subjectiveness going on. Either none of the hitters of that era get in, or all of them "worthy" of it get in. If the latter holds true, they should all have "played in steroid era" on their plaque... nobody will confuse those guys for the apparently "clean" guys from previous eras. Also, in today's age of advanced stats, it wouldn't be hard to create a metric that says somebody should or shouldn't be a HOFer... I'm pretty sure Baseball Reference uses a couple of them already. Add in a modifer for guys who had major playoff success (which I do believe is "part" of the game, and can take somebody from borderline HOFer to for sure HOFer).
I still say that we treat these guys the way we've always treated them, the best of a generation get in, period. They don't have "Played in deadball era" on plaques, or "was a speed freak" or "used corked bats" so I see no reason to single out one generation of players like that.
Baseball is going to have roughly two decades under-represented in its own HoF, which is silly. No one goes into the HoF void of context. We will tell the story of that era. To think there will be a time when people will view Barry Bonds as clean... I mean, it seems little far-fetched.
Does he not? Hmm well that's a good thing. Not really, the next form of cheating will be considered worse so PED guys from these generations will appear "clean" by comparison. It's what has happened before. Today we consider players who used corked bats, or greenies, or threw spitballs to be "clean" because they didn't take steroids....we even consider guys who took early steroids to be "clean" because they weren't as good as later steroids. Baseball and cheating have always gone hand in hand and they always will, we just don't know what the next form will be.
But degrees aren't really relevant; you make the case for me - corked bats, greenies, spitballs - we all know the context. We know Babe Ruth set every record possible in a segregated league; we know Ty Cobb was a violent, ugly racist; we know Pete Rose gambled on baseball... entry into the HoF doesn't cleanse any of those stories. We can, and will, tell our children, "Oh, yeah - but Barry Bonds did the clear." We, the fans, will properly contextualize the eras. Unfortunately, the BBWAA thinks we’re too dumb to do it so they’re taking that responsibility away from us.
Which is only hurting the relevance of the HOF, if most of the best guys the people who grew up in the 90's and early 00's watching aren't in the HOF, I think fewer and fewer people will care about taking their kids there. A baseball HOF without Clemens, Bonds, and Bagwell probably shouldn't even exist.
Depends on what you mean by "tainted ones", you'd probably have to move almost everyone in the HOF to that wing depending on your definition.
I'm talking about players that are suspected of using steroids. Players that had eye popping numbers during that time in baseball history. Players that didn't even use steroids, knew that steroids were being used by many other players. Everyone kept their mouths shut. Yes, all the players that played during that time are tainted. It might not be fair, but everyone is tainted in one way or another.
Indeed. As you alluded to earlier, the Hall of Fame is hemorrhaging credibility due to their completely incompetent handling of this as well as Pete Rose.
You're still creating a situation with too much ambiguity and room for rumor and conjecture. Let baseball fans tell the story; it's one of the sport's most enduring legacies; passing its history from generation to generation. Either ban everyone from the era, or no one and let players be judged by their numbers, inflated as they may be.
You've repeated this idea a few times in this thread, and I have to say that it's my favorite line of reasoning I've come across concerning the Hall of Fame. Too bad it doesn't take hold with influential parties. Indeed. Put them in. Bonds, One-Trick McGwire, Canseco, Corky, all of them. And put Rose in, too.
This is probably a can of worms... I've never dipped into these waters - but you think Rose should be in? I'm of the opinion - and this extends to the steroid era, too, though not as definitively because of all the ambiguity - that if you're guilty of a bannable offense, you shouldn't be in. So Palmiero? He tested postive, he's out. And I think I feel that way about Rose, although I've truthfully never really given it much thought.
Ya, so I'll try to behave! Indeed. I shall explain below. For me, the issue is two-fold. First, there are folks guilty of bannable offenses already in the hall, including a gambler. The inequity of it, to me, is very wrong. Secondly, the hall of fame is a separate entity to MLB. Entirely separate. So for the hall to ignore the obvious hall-worthy achievements of a select few players who managed to get themselves banned from MLB to me is ridiculous. Are we seriously pretending 4000 hits never happened? That one of the biggest pieces of the Big Red Machine didn't play? Horseradish. And Rose's stats weren't even compiled with the assistance of PEDs (unless we count uppers). Are we seriously going to pretend Bonds didn't break the record? Or that he wasn't already a lock for the hall before he got jealous and started roiding? It's like you said: let the fans tell the story. But the hall is sticking its fingers in its ears and pretending none of this ever happened. Stupid.
