Given the degree of philosophical disagreement over steroid use, I have some alternatives to the tradition induction/announcement/enshrinement methods long in use
How about we create a ballot that separates what the player did? 10 points for performance in individual seasons, 10 points for longevity of star-level performance, 10 points for character. A guy like Clemens (IMO) would get 10, 10 and 0 respectiviely, and 20 points would get him in, most years, and still let people like me hold our noses.
Or how about a separate HoF (or a separate wing) for those lacking in character?
But they’re famous. And some of them have accomplished things beyond what cheating did for them.
Plus, it’s REEAALLLLLYYY boring discussing all the time whether steroid users should be eligible for the HoF. My way, they get in (sort of) and they have their character flaws noted for all to see.
So what do you do with all the players already in the Hall of Fame that cheated? Are you suggesting we move Hank Aaron’s plaque to your new little wing? Same with Mike Schmidt and the countless others who have admitted to stimulant abuse?
This is what I don’t understand - you really don’t think the “steroid era” will be remembered? We still remember Joe Jackson. We still remember Ty Cobb punching a guy who didn’t have any hands. We remember Hornsby’s gambling. We delight in Gaylord Perry’s surupticious spitballer.
But no - if we put Barry Bonds in the Hall of Fame, countless generations will have absolutely no clue as to what the era’s context was, or that there was ever a scandal. :rolleyes:
My take is this: ALL awards should be taken with a grain of salt, and NONe of them deserves to be taken too seriously.
You think Bill Mazeroski doesn’t deserve to be in the Hall of Fame? I don’t think Lou Reed belongs in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. So what?
You don’t think Juan Gonzalez deserved his two MVP awards? I don’t think ***Out of ***Africa deserved the Oscar. So what?
If you don’t like the people selected to win any given award, you can gripe about it and work yourself into ulcers.
Or you can relax. It’s just a freaking award.
Heck, start your own awards, and give them to whoever you like. Or start your own Hall of Fame, and induct whoever you want. Just don’t give yourself fits over somebody else’s opinion.
I don’t recognize the ‘‘Hall of Fame’’ in any sport.
I’ll be the final judge of who I find to be the most impressive and elite athletes in their sport. With the interwebs, I don’t need a hall to help me review their career and get glimpses into them.
I’d like to make all the halls irrelevant.
In this day and age, given that we can all review the material at hand, including watching the players actually perform, and don’t rely on a press corp to tell us how good someone really is, the concept of a hall of fame and the committees that vote players in is an utter joke.
Details: a guy gets a unanimous “10” in the “character” zone, and everything written about his character (for public viewing) is positive. A “9” or an “8” gets an overwhelmingly positive writeup, etc. but a guy who gets an average vote of “3” (Clemens?) or “2” (Mcgwire?) or 1 (Bonds?) gets pretty much ripped. This would support players being decent people, sticking to the rules of the game, the spirit of the rules, obeying the law, etc. "You’ll get in the HoF, asshole, because you’re a great player, but I don’t think you’ll much like what’s written on your plaque "
What does “character” encompass? On the field and off? Just on? What if you play clean but are a a degenerate gambler? A racist? Drink so much you show up to the locker room hungover, but manage to perform well? Successfully throw a spitball to extend your career a few years? Seems like a lot of rules to come up with.