over here in the Lord Stanley’s Cup thread, we’re discussing the general brattiness of Jaromir Jagr, and I brought up the ESPN report that I saw yesterday claiming that in the future perhaps Jagr, Barry Bonds, Albert Belle and Ken Griffey Jr.(that one shocked me) will be PASSED OVER for their respective halls of fame simply because of their attitude towards other players and the media.
Cerowyn answered with this:
So what do you folks think? Should a player be denied entrance into the Hall of Fame simply because nobody liked them? Or should their on the field/rink/court performance be the only consideration?
I don’t know about Albert Belle going to Cooperstown, but I’d bet the farm that Jagr, Bonds, and Junior will be inducted on their first date of eligibility. As they should be.
I believe that Hall-of-fame consideration should include both the player’s ability and the person’s character. These players are intended to represent the best of the particular sport, and psychotic murderers (and other assorted a**holes) ought not be allowed into the Hall.
Unfortunately, my standards are not those of past voters, and some real jerks currently reside in the respective Halls-of-Fame. So I don’t suppose we can justifiably keep future candidates out based on character criteria. Unless we warn them now: “Shape up or forget the Hall!” I doubt that would work, though. And there will always be voters who disagree with me, so I think we’re stuck with the present system.
Good points Albert. I think there should be some sort of limit put on personal behavior though. I mean, if (hypothetically) you chop the head off of your exwife and kill her boyfriend, perhaps that should factor into the voting.
But being whiny shouldn’t keep you out. The key is…sports writers vote on the Hall of Fame…and they hold grudges against players like nobody’s business.
So Albert, do you attend any live sports events? Do you cheer for a person’s character even if they stink it up on the field?
I don’t mean this to sound prick-ish, I just wonder where you draw the line on someone being an asshole, someone being kinda rude but not a evil person, someone with a great heart but a drinking problem, etc.
Obviously, I know where you stand on someone like Ray Carruth (sp?). But where do you draw the line, down to someone who forgets to send flowers on mother’s day? It’s an awfully subjective process already, I don’t see how your plan could feasibly be implemented.
Lumping all of the sports together probably isn’t a good idea, because they have different methods for getting people into the respective Halls of Fame. For instance, what are the chances that someone could get themselves put into Cooperstown the same way that Alan Eagleson put himself into the Hockey Hall of Fame? Admittedly, when he was finally convicted, they booted him out, but he should never have been there in the first place.
I think the rules are a bit hazy for what constitutes acceptable off-field/ice/court behaviour. Ty Cobb is in Cooperstown (inducted 1936), despite apparently being a thoroughly unpleasant and downright nasty person outside of the game? Encarta says (of Cobb):
Not exactly a good role model. Hard to see how Pete Rose could possibly less worthy of getting inducted into Cooperstown.
However, to the OP, I’d like to see some distinction made between players when they’re inducted into the Halls of Fame, in much the way that all pro sports give awards for different types of players (hockey, for instance, has the following in addition to the usual offensive and defensive categories: “Leadership and Humanitarian Contribution” and “Player who Displays Gentlemanly Conduct”). That might address the concerns of people who’d worry that nasty-but-superb atheletes don’t get in (ref. Cobb and Rose), and still allow us to put in people who’s contributions don’t show up in the stats.
Yes, I’m with Albert in that when I’m running things at the Hall(s) of Fame, general conduct will have more weight. But unfortunately, I don’t think this is changing any time soon. I’m also willing to believe that the idea of good conduct might change with the times. It’s ok to change the standard, as long as it’s applied consistantly, without going back and de-Hall of Faming people.
jarbaby, I don’t mean to hijack your thread into an OJ debate, but I also wonder if there is a difference between someone who was found guilty of oh, say murdering his ex-wife (just as an example), and someone who stood trial and was found not guilty. Whether you and I think he did it, he did have his day in court – should that count for something? Is it the place of the league to second guess the courts? I am tempted to say it’s not. It’s creepy and weird in that particular case, but I also think it might set an unfair standard for other individuals who might have charges made against them, and then later, rightly, are found not guilty. I would rather have a system that protects the eligibility of the innocent person, even if the percentage of innocent people is lower than the number of morally, although not necessarily legally, guilty.
There’s a major reason for considering an athlete’s character that has everything to do with the sport.
Baseball is a team sport. The way each player acts on and off the field has an effect, good or bad, on the rest of the team. If there’s a star player, and he’s in the zone, and if he’s not going to put up with your half-assed effort, you’re going to work harder and keep your head in the game. Not only because you know you’re being watched, but you’re being challenged. You’re being led by the example of a man who’s working harder to win than you.
Buuuut, if you’re Albert Belle and you don’t give a fuck what the other players are doing. If you’re only in it for yourself, and you cause a lot of shit to hit a lot of fans. If the coaches have to stop worrying about what’s happening on the field to deal with YOUR temper tantrums, if the writers are wondering what you’re going to do next, not how well the team is doing, if the players are sick of having to defend your selfish actions . . . in short, if it’s becoming more hell to play WITH you and win than slack off, then who deserves the credit for that?
Every team that Albert Belle left was glad to see the last of him. The best anyone could say – and I’m talking about those who consider themselves as close to Belle as anyone could be (and that’s not saying much) – could only meekly say, “well, that’s the way he is.” No speeches, no celebrations, not even a handshake on the way out the door.
When Michael Jordan was playing, he improved everyone’s play just by being himself. Look at how his teammates did after he retired; the stats tell the truth. So do the rings on his fingers.
Albert Belle, the man, hurt the teams he played on as much, if not more, than Albert Belle, the athlete, helped them. That’s why he should not be in the hall.
(Nor should Pete Rose, but to go into detail why would hijack the thread completely, so I’ll leave that alone.)
Character counts to some degree, but by the time it comes to vote for HOF, the record on the field is more important. Off the field can matter (Orlando Cepeda took years to get elected due to a drug bust), but it less important than the statistics. And being a jerk doesn’t count at all.
The odds of Ken Griffey Jr. and Barry Bonds being passed over by the Baseball Hall of Fame are absolutely zero. It’s ludicrous to even suggest it.
Jagr’s induction is no less certain, though in the case of the Hockey Hall of Fame, induction is a lot easier. The Baseball HoF is pretty hard to get into and features a strange dual election process, while induction to hockey’s version basically involves playing regularly for a long time.
For all the yappery about how they’re bad guys or brats or don’t get along with the press, I would point out that Jagr (and Griffey, and Bonds thrice) got along with the press enough for the press to give them all MVP Awards. And over time, a player’s alleged personality problems mean less and less, and his objective accomplishments mean more and more.
Jagr is obviously overqualified for the Hall of Fame. He is one of the great players of his era. He has been a phenomenally durable and productive player for over a decade. He has won an MVP Award and played on many All-Star teams. He has led the NHL in many statistical categories, including four scoring titles. He has played for two Stanley Cup winners and has performed admirably in the playoffs. I can’t think of any justification for leaving him out.
pesch claims that Albert Belle didn’t “Even get a handshake out the door” when he left a team. He only ever left a team three times in his career if you count his retirement, so it’s not much of a sample, but HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT, pesch? How do YOU know what Belle’s teammates thought of him? How do you know some weren’t really close to him and hated that he left, or that he didn’t command a lot of respect in the clubhouse? Did you play with the Indians, White Sox, or Orioles while Belle was with those teams?
The truth of the matter is that, in all likelihood, nobody participating in this discussion really knows very much at all about Jaromir Jagr, Albert Belle, or Barry Bonds, and is utterly unqualified to comment on their character. For the most part the only information we get is what the media tells us about how they have “intangibles” or “character” or not, and sports journalists will invariably lie about it. They base their calls not on any sort of truth, but on two basic things:
Race. Like it or not, blacks are treated worse by the media than whites. Look at the different ways Alan Trammell and Lou Whitaker, remarkably similar player on the same team, were treated. Or look at the way the Chicago media has lionized the white Mark Grace, an okay-but-not-terrific player who liked to badmouth his teammates to the press, while casting aspersions on the abilities of the black Sammy Sosa, a magnificent ballplayer in every respect. Look at how Rickey Henderson, a certain Hall of Famer who has hustled contributed to winning teams his whole career, is said to have attitude problems, while Pete Rose was worshipped by the media HIS entire career despite being a substantially greater ass-head and deliberately hurting his team late in his career so that he could break the stupid hits record.
Another neat comparison is to compare Larry Bird’s treatment to any comparable black player of his time. As has been pointed out in other media, Bird’s “work ethic” and “hustle” were far more emphasized in his case than it was for directly comparable cagers like Magic Johnson, despite the fact that Magic worked every bit as hard and hustled every bit as much. You also didn’t see the media talking about Larry Bird being arrogant or jerky despite the fact that there are more first-person accounts of him being an asshole than you’ll find for most players (a lot of that was gamesmanship, not legitimate assholitude, but God forbid a black player do the sorts of things Bird did!)
In hockey, you can draw similar lines along the European/Not European lines, though that happens more in Canada than the U.S. But just ask around here and see what people think of Ulf Samuelsson, while they rationalize cheap shot artists like Tie Domi and Bryan Marchment. See what they think of the playoffs guts of any one of a number of European Ottawa Senators players, but you never see the Canadian chokers who play for the Flyers criticized.
JAgr’s a fascinating case. To my eyes anything you say about him could be said about any number of Canadian or American players. Brett Hull looks like a much bigger ass-head than Jagr, but the press fellates Hull at every opportunity.
How well the player interviews. Sports journalists love good interviews and will write positive things about players who give them. If you make a list of players the media seems to glorify and players they’re down on, you will invariably find that the ones they glorify are overwhelmingly articulate, open guys, while the ones they hate are usually shy, quiet, or don’t like giving interviews.
Woah…woah WOAH!!! RICKY! Get the teeth out of my neck!
First of all. I started this thread because I was frankly SHOCKED to discover that SPORTS WRITERS felt that Jagr could be passed over for the hall of fame, when in the same report MARIO “Everybody Blows Me” Lemieux said he was “the greatest player in the world”.
I think he should definitely be in.
I was also not the one to suggest that Ken Griffey may not get into the Hall of Fame…ESPN did. Much to my shock. Frankly, I didn’t realize that he was unfriendly with the media.
And I don’t claim to KNOW any of these players (as much as I’d like to grrwwwwl), but I do know what the media thinks of them, and regardless of whether the media is lying about them or not…sports media figures (writers, reporters, radio guys) if I understand the process correctly) are the ones who vote on who gets into the hall of fame.
Of the players mentioned in the OP, Bonds and Griffey, IMHO are no brainer Hall of Famers. Belle was a marginal candidate at best, at the time he was forced out of the game (I believe he might have improved his chances by putting up more impressive career totals if he hadn’t had to leave baseball when he did. He might have gone from a marginal candidate to a decent one.)
If something were to happen to Jagr right now, or an injury would force him to retire prematurely early, I’m not sure he’d be a no brainer with his current stats. But if he plays out a “normal” career (even given that he’ll lose some of his skills to age), he’s probably a fairly sure thing.
As to whether character will keep people out of their sport’s Hall of Fame? I tend to think that it would only happen if a “sure Hall of Famer” committed murder or something really heinous, or alternately if a player were a marginal candidate, like Albert Belle, the fact that he was disliked could keep him out.
Finally, the points made that different sports have different standards is obviously a good one.
[ul]
[li]winner of two Lester B.Pearson Awards for the outstanding player in the NHL (1999 and 2000)[/li][li]winner of the Hart Trophy for the NHL Most Valuable Player (1999)[/li][li]winner of four Art Ross Trophies for the NHL’s top scorer (1995, 1998, 1999 and 2000)[/li][li]Stanley Cup Winner twice with the Pittsburgh Penguins (1991 and 1992)[/li][li]NHL 1st All Star Team player six times (1995 - 2000)[/li][/ul]
I disagree.
Minor nitpick here. Eagleson was elected to the HHOF. Say what you will about his conflict of interest that caused so many problems. He must have known that there were “issues” with what he was doing. That said, Eagleson did do a great deal for hockey, especially on the international stage. You may remember the Summit Series, and the Canada Cup? Those came to be because of Eagleson.
Gil Stein, a long time VP of the NHL and very short time president of the league, did some shifty manuvering to get himself elected to the HHOF. He too has been removed.
Jagr is in, so is Bonds and Griffey. Belle was marginal already.
The differing HOFs have different criteria. Baseball says character counts. Football says between the lines only. Came up big time with Lawrence Taylor. Under FB rules, there is no way he should not have been unanimous.
Rose is out, as he should be. Baseball has always had a bug about gambling. Durocher got a year suspension for ASSOCIATING. They have it posted in every clubhouse. He put himself above the rules. He agreed to his ineligibility.
Bonds and Henderson have been treated VERY kindly at times. Both have a tendency to dog it and not hustle. (notably, for someone accused of almost everything else, including being caught with a corked bat, Belle was never accused of failing to give 100%). Balls Bonds watched hit the wall. Rickey has failed to hustle numerous times - ask any fan of the teams he played for. And Sosa has bulked up so much he is now a BAD outfielder, while he once was pretty good. And he doesn't run very well anymore, either.
Fair enough. I admit I have a better feel for what it takes to make the Baseball HOF than the Hockey HOF. So I’ll defer to you on this one, Jagr’s in now.
And while he may be whiny, there’s no way in hell he has enough character issues to keep him out. At least, not unless he goes McSorley or Domi on someone before he retires. Someone with his relative level of unpopularity would have to be a really marginal candidate for it to cost him.
[hijack]
First, let me qualify what I’m about to say by admitting that I live in Toronto, and I’ve been a Leafs fan since I discovered hockey in 1974 (the sport wasn’t exactly well known in the UK).
However, while what Domi did was uncalled for, and warranted a suspension, putting him in the same league as McSorley, Claude Lemieux or Stevens is a bit unfair. Unlike the three aforementioned players, Domi has never been assessed an “intent to injure” penalty. The majority of his [extremely high] number of penalty minutes are for fighting or roughing. No-one will dispute that his role is as a tough guy, but up until now, he’s been fairly straight forward about it.
[/hijack]
Getting back to the OP, I must confess that I favour the NFL approach – in other words, reserve the Hall of Fame for people who made significant contributions to the sport on the field/rink. I realize that this might unfairly exclude people whose contributions are intangible, I think it preserves the purity of the Hall[s].
Cerowyn, point taken. Though I’ve heard at least some sports commentary that Domi’s was at least as bad as McSorley’s…I think the argument was that it was more premeditated, or some such. I’m not sure why this is, since McSorley also seemed to go WAY out of his way to get Brashear.
I definitely agree that Domi doesn’t have an extensive and prolonged history of cheap shots, and is fairly straightforward.
My point, however, is that even if Domi’s hit wasn’t as mendacious as McSorley’s, Lemieux’s, or Stevens’ (or Dale Hunter with his vicious hit on Pierre Turgeon–claiming he didn’t realize the game winning goal had been scored–yah, that’s why everyone on the other team had their hands raised and was celebrating), that caliber of dirty play can (and probably should) endanger one’s chances of making the HOF, even for a fairly established candidate.
Oh, and re McSorley–us Kings fans will never forgive him for what he most famous for BEFORE his hit on Brashear. In Game 2 of the one and only Stanley Cup final involving the LA Kings, McSorley had a penalty called because he was using an illegal stick. Turned the series around.
