The Hall Of Fame voting--Now what do we do?

Unless MLB strikes the PED users stats from the record books I'm judging them on their performance on the field. If anyone wants to bring up character get back to me after the racists are kicked out of the Hall. If anyone wants to bring up PEDs get back to me after all the greenie poppers are kicked out.

So then you support Pete Rose to the HOF?

As a Reds fan, I probably used too...having thought about it a lot more over the years, not sure I do anymore.

I don't understand how the accomplishments of the player with the most hits can be ignored. Just don't let Rose work for MLB in any capacity.

I'm with RJM, and to answer justbaseball's question, yes, I think Pete Rose's Hall case should be judged on the merits of his performance on the field, regardless of whether or not he violated rules that certainly justify his exclusion from the game itself (but not the Hall). [A seperate question is whether his performance merits HOF selection; I think it does, but his kind of singles-hitting case based on little more than base hits and batting average, while ignoring outs made (Rose made far and away more outs than anybody in MLB history - almost 1200 more outs than #2 Aaron and #3 Yastrzemski) is far less valuable than most people think - Hit King or not.]

One reason people follow stats so closely in baseball is the illusion that players across eras separated by centuries are directly comparable. There are ways to adjust stats for era and park and league and quality of competition, but there is no direct way to compare players across eras and generations through traditional, unadjusted stats like batting average, home runs, RBI, whatever. The best you can do is try to figure out whether a player was among the very best in whatever context he played, and be done with it.

I know that what angers people about that point of view is that those who truly were clean in the steroids era are punished because they look worse in comparison to the performance of their peers who were using. That is undoubtedly true, and very unfortunate, but the sad fact is we will never know who used and who didn't (and lumping a *presumed* user who was actually a non-user in with the users is just as unfair - or more so - as judging the performance of non-users directly with those who boosted their performance artificially). Beyond that, ALL players (non-users too) were complicit in not doing more to remove PEDs from the game. What else can you do fairly but judge them based on their performance on the field?

This is a hard issue, and I don't suppose there are any right or wrong answers to Three Bagger's question. I know I didn't always feel the way I do now about this issue. I said this a year ago on another site (the context was a discussion about Bagwell, and I was moved to comment when my beloved Edgar was dragged into the mud; it was a great discussion), about how my thinking has evolved on this issue and why:

quote:

"My own view on PED use in the steroid era and how it should effect HoF voting is evolving. I used to think (as I think Rob Neyer still does) that it is unreasonable to ask voters to ignore what they know or even what they THINK they know, but that there are gradations of “discounts” (if you will) that should be attached to a candidate based on whether we KNOW they used (admitted or caught), strongly suspect with good evidence to back that up (Mitchell Report), suspect based on believable innuendo and hearsay (some would say Bagwell or Piazza fit this), and then those who the suspicion is based on little more than the coincidence that their career happened during the steroid era and they hit home runs and had a muscular physique. The higher up that ladder you go, the bigger the discount. And then, in the case of those you believe were clean, give them a little “boost” if and when a tie-breaker is needed or in comparison with someone you suspect. I think a fair number of voters still vote this way.

"I’ve come around to the point of view that, outside of those who’ve been caught or admitted PED use, it is simply impossible to know with any reasonable degree of certainty who used and who didn’t, and what effect PEDs did or did not have on performance. My system of 'discounts' and 'boosts' is therefore not much better than purely arbitrary. The better practice, I now think, is to ignore the question of PED use, measure each player against his peers within the era, and elect those who performed the best. [The possible exception might be known/admitted/caught users, at least if a voter strongly suspects that player could not have achieved a HoF level career without PED use - which leaves room to elect guys like Bonds and Clemens while potentially barring the door for a guy like McGwire or Sosa.]

"But guys like Edgar - or even Bagwell, about whom I think the 'evidence' is much stronger - the whole question has or should have little to no bearing on their HoF candidacy and the whole debate is unfair to them based on the kind of 'evidence' people throw around. Both of these guys have good HoF credentials, in my view - Bagwell’s clearly better, and Edgar closer to the borderline for legitimate questions about career/peak length, counting stats, and the DH. I think there are good answers/rebuttals to those concerns about Edgar, and he is comfortably over the bar, but reasonable minds may differ on that. I am OK with that; I am not OK with BS accusations of PED use based on the flimsiest and most speculative bases derailing his candidacy. And, more than anything, what upset me about Rob’s piece was that he is a respected saberist with a national following who is helping to open the door to that.

"This has been a fun discussion, and I know that those I’ve argued opposite of are not screaming 'Edgar’s a USER! He should be banned from the HoF!' from the rooftops, and probably would even agree with at least some or even most of what I wrote above. We can agree to disagree about whether PED suspicion surrounding Edgar is reasonable or not, but I hope we can agree that even bringing the subject up in the debate over his candidacy (or other, similarly situated candidates) is damaging in a grossly unfair way.

"And largely pointless. The era is what the era is, much as the 1920s and 1930s are what they were because of rule changes, the “lively ball,” and lack of integration. Elect the best of the era, and be done with it."

Buster Olney I think has made the best statement. He said the HOF has made the PED users "Players in good standing" and that the writers should only look at that fact and base the players off their merits. Further more McGwire is a MLB hitting coach and both Bagwell and Bonds work for their respective teams. If MLB allows these men to continue to work and be paid by MLB teams why shouldn't they be allowed in.Furthermore If you read the article on ESPN.com yesterday Brandon Marshall stated a lot of players are using Viagra as a stimulent. If that is going on in the NFL it is going on in MLB. Where does it stop? If the HOF state they are players in good sta

There's no room for soft in the NFL.

Let them all in if their stats warrant it. Then the fans can decide from there whose autograph and memorabilia they are willing to pay for.

BaseballByTheYard.com

To be clear...other than Pete Rose...all the others are allowed to be "let in." The only thing that stands between them and the HOF are votes. Some will get them, some will not.

Also, by definition, Pete Rose's ban from baseball also bans him from the HOF.

As I stated earlier, I used to be in favor of Rose in the HOF...but after 20 years of thinking about it, I am not anymore.

I am really on the fence on the PED thing. Somehow, I can see both sides of the argument and I think both have elements of merit.

quote:

Originally posted by justbaseball:

"Also, by definition, Pete Rose's ban from baseball also bans him from the HOF."

I am pretty sure that is not true. The Hall of Fame is its own entity, not an arm of Major League Baseball, and decided on its own whether or not to honor MLB's ban w/r/t Rose (and earlier, Shoeless Joe Jackson and the other Black Sox). They could choose to change that policy if they wanted to - and as I said, IMO, they should.

How revelent will the Hall of Fame be if the all time leaders in hits, HRs, etc. are not included? I have started to change my thinking on the PEDs issue. All of it depends on what one considers the purpose of the Hall. Is it meant to be a record keeper of baseball, with the best of every era included or it something that will get less and less important in telling the game's history as more and more players are left out? I think we should just go by the numbers, with some discount for PEDs as EdgarFan mentioned if that is believed to be the only way a player got in.

Pete Rose is another matter although I think on his death he should be voted in as the ban is a lifetime ban. That way he won't benefit while he's still here.

I believe if Rose were to be inducted to the HOF he would disappear from site. The novelty of being excluded would be gone. Any followers where he may benefit financially are going to follow regardless.

quote:

Originally posted by RJM:
I believe if Rose were to be inducted to the HOF he would disappear from site. The novelty of being excluded would be gone. Any followers where he may benefit financially are going to follow regardless.

Given what I perceive to be the size of his ego, I doubt that. I believe he'd be very visible and longtime supporters would race to his side. And there are a lot of them too.

foget the gambling---his on fi8eld exploits say hall of fame

quote:

Originally posted by EdgarFan:

quote:

Originally posted by justbaseball:

"Also, by definition, Pete Rose's ban from baseball also bans him from the HOF."

I am pretty sure that is not true. The Hall of Fame is its own entity, not an arm of Major League Baseball, and decided on its own whether or not to honor MLB's ban w/r/t Rose (and earlier, Shoeless Joe Jackson and the other Black Sox). They could choose to change that policy if they wanted to - and as I said, IMO, they should.

I guess we're both right...sort of? Or perhaps you're more right? The end result is the same though.

From Wikipedia:

On February 4, 1991, the Hall of Fame voted formally to exclude individuals on the permanently ineligible list from being inducted into the Hall of Fame by way of the Baseball Writers Association of America vote (though it was already an "unwritten" rule prior). Rose is the only living member of the ineligible list. Players who were not selected by the BWAA could be considered by the Veterans Committee in the first year after they would have lost their place on the Baseball Writers' ballot. Under the Hall's rules, players may appear on the ballot for only fifteen years, beginning five years after they retire. Had he not been banned from baseball, Rose's name could have been on the writers' ballot beginning in 1992 and ending in 2006.[19] He would have been eligible for consideration by the Veterans Committee in 2007, but did not appear on the ballot.[20] In 2008 the Veterans Committee barred players and managers on the ineligible list from consideration.[21]

i think the ped user's skirted the system more than Rose did.I know they made tons more money than Rose did by breaking the rules (written or not).

if your ok with the ped guy's you have to be ok with Rose.how many kids went out and gambled because Rose did? How many kids used ped's because those guy's did?

Just one man's opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by IEBSBL:
Buster Olney I think has made the best statement. He said the HOF has made the PED users "Players in good standing" and that the writers should only look at that fact and base the players off their merits. Further more McGwire is a MLB hitting coach and both Bagwell and Bonds work for their respective teams. If MLB allows these men to continue to work and be paid by MLB teams why shouldn't they be allowed in.Furthermore If you read the article on ESPN.com yesterday Brandon Marshall stated a lot of players are using Viagra as a stimulent. If that is going on
in the NFL it is going on in MLB. Where does it stop? If the HOF state they are players in good sta

I could never support a player like Sammy Sosa being included. He went from a singles hitting, solid but not great player to a prolific homerun hitter that resembled the incredible hulk with a huge head! Sosa and others like him decided to cheat on a massive scale. To me allowing in players like him devalues the accomplishments of many in the hall...

quote:

Originally posted by EdgarFan:
The best you can do is try to figure out whether a player was among the very best in whatever context he played, and be done with it.

ALL players (non-users too) were complicit in not doing more to remove PEDs from the game. What else can you do fairly but judge them based on their performance on the field?

"The era is what the era is, much as the 1920s and 1930s are what they were because of rule changes, the “lively ball,” and lack of integration. Elect the best of the era, and be done with it."[/i]

...and there is your answer.

For anyone to say they know for certainty that any certain player or players did or didn't use PEDs is laughable and self-serving. The ones who do know, far more than anyone else and far more than they let on, are the players from that era.

Anyone whose been closely involved or associated with professional atheletes in the last half century knows better, and knows that there is a whole lot more to the story than the Mitchell Witch Hunt. If you believe otherwise, you are only fooling yourself. Professional sports is big, big business, a big-time entertainment entity. The show must go on. The product, er bodies, have to be held together and put out on the stage, er field. Bigger, faster, stronger sells. Money and ratings are king. Executives and officials provide motive, means, and tacit approval, then act aghast and feign ignorance when atheletes are caught. The sportswriters covering them are not much better.

I am not defending anyone. Just saying there is what they want people to see and believe; what people want to believe; then there is the hidden reality. It is pretty easy to find scapegoats to distract the masses. It is much harder for the masses to see the bigger reality.

Interesting idea on Rose (waiting until his death to put him in, as it is a "lifetime" band), Three Bagger. Not sure I've heard that one before. I'm also not sure I agree - I think he's been punished enough (though I would continue the ban from MLB) and deserves a vote on his merits. He'd lose votes from those for whom the character clause is very important, and might not get in, but I think it is time that he gets his chance. Your proposal is a decent compromise, though.

The other part of Three Bagger's last post that interests me is the whole idea of what the Hall is supposed to be. I've always considered it a historical museum, and it should showcase the players, people, and events that had the biggest impact on the game - warts and all. As somebody observed in another discussion I'm in (paraphrasing), the Museum of Modern Art doesn't pretend faddish works (or entire movements) of contemporary art didn't exist, and I don't think the Hall (or really, its voters) should run from periods it doesn't like.

Of course, as with almost everything else in this debate, there is a counterargument to that: the Hall of Fame actually does include a museum, and it includes artifacts from the steroid era, Pete Rose, Joe Jackson. The placque room, and the Hall as we normally think of it is (theoretically) something different. I'm just not sure I buy that either - just as the artifacts and history of the game should be presented in total, so too should we honor all eras (and the best players from those eras), even the darkest ones. [And one could make an argument that the pre-integration period was far darker, and had as much or greater impact than did the steroid era on who measured up as among the greatest of the great, but nobody has ever suggested that any of the players of that time deserve additional scrutiny.]

20dad wrote:

quote:

"...if your ok with the ped guy's you have to be ok with Rose."

I get where you are going with that, and even agree to some degree with the basic point (judge players based on what they did on the field and whether they were among the best of their era), but I don't think this statement is necessarily true, logically. Baseball treats the kind of cheating Rose (and Shoeless Joe) did MUCH, much more seriously than it does PED use. The penalty for gambling on games has long been lifetime banishment. In the 1990s, literally EVERYBODY looked the other way w/r/t PEDs, and even now, you aren't banned unless you are caught THREE times. The distinction in the way Major League Baseball itself considers these different forms of cheating makes enough of a difference to justify a defensible argument in treating Rose differently from PED users. Not that I agree, just that you can make a reasonable and defensible argument to that effect.

Man, I don't know exactly why it is, but I LOVE Hall of Fame discussions....

I think we need to ban all actresses from Hollywod who enhance their bodies. Hollywood is big money. It's bigger than pro sports. Enhancing is not fair to the women who come to Hollywood who want a fair chance and aren't willing to risk their physical health.

Once we clean out Hollywood we can work on making sure all those women in the Sports Illustated swim suit issue are all natural. There shouldnt be any enhancing to gain an unfair advantage getting into the magazine.

Really the Rose and Joe Jackson banishments have nothing to do with if they made more money than PED users or whether kids will gamble because players do. It all goes back to the basic fabric of professional sports. Are the games on the level? It was a major deal when that NBA referee was found to have been betting on games and he certainly affected the outcomes of playoff games.

Jackson took money to throw the 1919 World Series. If you one studies the history behind the 1919 World Series one might somewhat sympathize with the players involved but it really comes down to greed on their part and screw what the fans thought. The same applies to Rose. He could bet himself bankrupt on the NBA or NFL and no one would care but no, he had to bet on games his own team was involved in. Don't think he didn't make managerial decisions that helped his bets and probably hurt the team at times even in the way he used relievers and such.

Having said the above, Jackson is dead so if he deserves the Hall on his numbers then put him in. When Rose can't enjoy it any more and can't make money off of the Hall, let him in. I say all this despite the fact that Rose was one of my favorite players and I based my batting stance on his and ran to first on walks like him.

quote:

Originally posted by Three Bagger:
Pete Rose is another matter although I think on his death he should be voted in as the ban is a lifetime ban. That way he won't benefit while he's still here.

I never thought of it that way.

I say, as long as this (person) retains BBWA's highest award, and his player selection vote, there is no standard of character. Let 'em all in, every last one of them.

Bill Conlin has been a member in good standing of the BBWAA since 1966. The allegations have no bearing on his winning the 2011 J.G. Taylor Spink Award, which was in recognition of his notable career as a baseball writer.

quote:

Originally posted by AntzDad:

"I say, as long as this (person) retains BBWA's highest award, and his player selection vote, there is no standard of character. Let 'em all in, every last one of them.

Bill Conlin has been a member in good standing of the BBWAA since 1966. The allegations have no bearing on his winning the 2011 J.G. Taylor Spink Award, which was in recognition of his notable career as a baseball writer.

Good point, AntzDad. Conlin is in one big creepy mess, and given the moralizing so many BBWAA members have engaged in over suspected misconduct by players and whether that is some kind of reflection on their "character" as they are supposed to consider in HoF voting, the BBWAA position on this falls pretty high on the hypocrisy meter.

And BTW, Happy HSBBWeb birthday AntzDad (it's my actual birthday today, which is probably why I noticed).

This whole situation is going to lead to possible disaster as over the next several years we stack up people who are not going to get enough votes no matter what they did on the field and the vote is split more and more ways. Soon NOBODY is going to get the required 75% including the players many people feel were non users.

However we don't truly know who used and who didn't if they weren't caught redhanded, named on a list somewhere, or named by other players for various reasons. I now feel we should just put in whoever put up HUGE numbers and move on trying to never let this happen again. This is quite a change in my thinking over the last several years.

Oh, and Happy Birthday, EdgarFan!

Three Bagger, I agree. Baseball can't ignore its all time or single-season home run leaders. And, thanks, Edgar Fan. Happy Birthday to you, as well.