Hall of Fame debate

[southsider2k5]

I am curious what people think here... How should certian people be viewed in regards to going into the Hall of Fame from this era?

 

Should we enshrine people strictly based on their numbers?

 

Should we enshrine people who probably would have been HOFs before they started cheating?

 

Should we enshrine people who are proven to cheat, but didn't admit it?

 

Should we enshrine people who admit to cheating?

 

Should we only enshirine people who we are as certian as possible did not cheat?

 

Thoughts? I have specific people in mind, but I am curious to hear how others think, without shaping the debate myself.

[Balta1701]

The nice thing about being people is...we can use logic to deal with each and every situation.

 

For me personally, I would still enshrine people based on numbers, but I would do so with a careful eye towards the juiced part of the era, and I would try to exclude people who I thought had seriously damaged the game with their work.

 

For example, someone will make the Bonds was a HOF guy before he juiced argument, but I'm going to count him out based on the fact that including him would add shame to the Hall of Fame. I'll say the same thing for McGwire, and I'll say the same thing for Clemens unless he somehow pulls a rabbit out of his hat and wins a defamation case while avoiding prison for lying to Congress.

 

I could be convinced to admit a cheater if he was willing to admit what he did and cooperate...if they had the numbers. For example, his numbers aren't there yet, but after being caught in the Mitchell report, Pettitte has opened up and has been a key part of the Clemens takedown. If he had a few Cy Young seasons under his belt or something like that, then after his performance this year, I'd be willing to consider him.

 

Otherwise, I go back to the numbers, but I still keep the steroids thing in mind with the idea of rewarding the people who I think did their work cleanly. Pedro. Thomas. Thome. Manny. Maddux. Glavine. Smoltz. And so on. Those folks dominated the era and as far as we can tell they did it cleanly.

[NorthSideSox72]

Should we enshrine people strictly based on their numbers?

Of course not. Baseball isn't just numbers, why would the HOF be?

 

Should we enshrine people who probably would have been HOFs before they started cheating?

If they cheated, no.

 

Should we enshrine people who are proven to cheat, but didn't admit it?

No.

 

Should we enshrine people who admit to cheating?

No.

 

Should we only enshirine people who we are as certian as possible did not cheat?

Probably, but the whole case has to be taken into account.

 

[Texsox]

I think there is time to adjust how the HoF is run.

 

I have not worked out the details in my mind, so of anyone really wants to take my halfbaked idea and poke holes in it, it would be easy so I'm not even going to bother defending.

 

but

 

There needs to be a space for Rose, Bonds, Mark, while keeping the rest of the HoF "clean".

[witesoxfan]

I think there is time to adjust how the HoF is run.

 

I have not worked out the details in my mind, so of anyone really wants to take my halfbaked idea and poke holes in it, it would be easy so I'm not even going to bother defending.

 

but

There needs to be a space for Rose, Bonds, Mark, while keeping the rest of the HoF "clean".

 

Baseball should implement a Hall of Shame; I mean, atleast you get your own wing and a plaque and all that stuff

[Balta1701]

Thought this fit in well.

When Hall of Fame exec Jeff Idelson told Dan Patrick they might "consider'' taking Brian McNamee's steroid tools -- the syringes, vials, gauzes -- for a display to mark the steroid era (if they do it an "educational way,'' Idelson added), it raised the delicious possibility that McNamee could make the Hall, but not Roger Clemens. That is, unless you count the Rocket's DNA.

[Texsox]

Baseball should implement a Hall of Shame; I mean, atleast you get your own wing and a plaque and all that stuff

I was avoiding that term, because it would not really be what I am thinking.

 

I believe it should be more elevating some players to an even higher status. Perhaps a hundred players, maybe less. 2% of the Hall maybe?

[witesoxfan]

I was avoiding that term, because it would not really be what I am thinking.

 

I believe it should be more elevating some players to an even higher status. Perhaps a hundred players, maybe less. 2% of the Hall maybe?

 

So are you suggesting like Clemens, Bonds, McGwire, etc, are Hall of Fame deserving, but some players, such as Ruth, Aaron, Mays (and from this era, Pedro, Maddux, Henderson, perhaps Griffey) are more deserving of like a Hall of Immortality or something such as that?

 

 

[Texsox]

So are you suggesting like Clemens, Bonds, McGwire, etc, are Hall of Fame deserving, but some players, such as Ruth, Aaron, Mays (and from this era, Pedro, Maddux, Henderson, perhaps Griffey) are more deserving of like a Hall of Immortality or something such as that?

 

Basically, yes. Cy Young, Mays, Ruth, Williams, Aaron, etc.