The Hall is not one conscious thought process, but more of a collection. There is no rhyme nor reason, really. Jim Rice is not in, but Ted Williams was also rude to reporters. Of course, Ted was one of the handful of best hitters, ever, so maybe he was past the point of debate? In such case, where is the line of no debate? Rice was feared, no doubt about that. Rice put up some monstrous numbers - should he be in The Hall?
Pete Rose is currently banned. Should he be in? I say that he is past the line of doubt: meaning, his numbers alone are good enough to get him in. His gambling is not really the issue here, but the integrity of the game. He consorted with big money gamblers, and there might have been cause for him to negatively affect outcomes. Here's my take on this: Cooperstown is about recognition. Pete had over 4000 hits. He belongs in the Hall of Fame. He consorted with shady figures who might have had an interest in "affecting" performances. For that, he has been banned from participating in the game, and rightfully so.
Since we are discussing the distinction between being banned from the game and entry into the Hall of Fame, let's add one additional tragic figure: "Shoeless" Joe Jackson. He consorted to a far lesser degree than Pete. Indeed, he knew of the World Series fixing in 1919 in advance, but did not come out and report it. Reckon he feared for his well-being? Joe Jackson has paid his dues. He belongs in the Hall of Fame.
The Hall is about awareness. Pete and Shoeless Joe had major roles to play in the baseball of their times. They belong in. The Hall should have a display near their plaques, educating visitors about their controversy. Why was Jackson banned? Why was Rose controversial? The Hall is about awareness. They belong in.
Barroid? Big Mac? Swingin', Sneezin' Sammy? Same thing applies here. They did what they did. The Hall is about awareness. They belong in, along with the display of education, letting us know about them and their deeds. To not put the 5 players I have mentioned into the Hall of Fame is as though MLB has its head buried in the sand. Doesn't work too well for ostriches, either.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Good points. I think that they should all get in. Even Rose, as it was related that Rose bet on games his team was playing - to win. If you are betting on them to win, then you are not throwing the game, just getting extra rewards for believing in the team. While I can see the ban from Baseball, I don't see it from the HOF.
I like your idea of using it as a means of explaining and educating the future generations of what happened. In a way it is like the "*" is meant to do. There is no way to separate what they would have done without enhancements. Then again, in the old days they played around with the equipment to gain an edge. Corked bats, doctored balls, whatever.
The thing is we will never know how much Steroids and HGH helped any of these players who used. It might have shortened their careers, it might have enhanced them. Who knows?
The era is what it is though, and everyone was guilty of turning a blind eye to it for a long time.
Thank you, my friend.
I think that baseball is confusing the Hall of Fame and actually being in baseball.
Joe Jackson is dead. Keeping him out of The Hall serves no purpose.
Pete Rose consorted with gamblers. Fine, keep him out of organized ball. Keeping him out of The Hall serves no purpose.
I say put 'em in!
I just think of how much richer Cooperstown would be if they added Jackson and Rose in. I bet most kids who visit there don't even know who Rose or Jackson are in the history of the game.
That is the bigger shame.
Aye, as a historian, I agree.
Who is being punished here, after all? Shoeless Joe? Well, let's break out the Ouija Board and let him know. ;-) Much, much richer with Pete, and Joe. Let 'em in.
Post a Comment