So no one was worthy this year. Let's break it down as to why. There were guys who had the career numbers, but not any big accomplishments or post-season success. There were guys who had the post-season success that everyone remembers, but not really great career numbers. Finally, there were the guys that were implicated in the use of steroids. The first group will get in eventually, but don't hold your breath waiting. The second group will get in because they're iconic players. They're just going to wait a little bit. The last group... man, I don't know.
Player reaction is pretty easy to figure out. Guys in the Hall say, "Keep 'em out." The rest want them in. They'll find the numbers to justify virtually any good player who isn't obvious. You can tell this means a lot to the players, mostly because they act like pissed off debutantes not invited to a big party. The nominated players act like they're entitled to get in and get worse about it as the years go on. The general sports talk media was going to go off on this topic regardless of what happened today, so they're irrelevant.
Predictably, a bunch of sports writers are furious about the complete snubbing, even though they only have themselves to blame, since they're the only ones who get a vote in this. These guys have little in common with the average fan. They root for the name on the back of jersey, not the front (unless said team is the Yankees, Red Sox, or now the Dodgers, you know, the big glamorous spenders). They want the interviews, the stories, and the contraversies. Who wins and loses doesn't matter. This snubbing is just tee'ed up for debate. Hell, they may have done this on purpose just to create the story.
Some writers want the Hall pure of anybody who may have messed with the integrity of the game. Anybody making an arguement that this group of writers is trying to "white-wash" the Hall of "bad people" by way of the character clause is being disingeniuous. No, a bastard racist like Ty Cobb, regardless of his tremendous career numbers, would not get into the Hall today in this politically correct age. He'd be run out of the league well before that. But back in the day, sure, he's in. If steroids weren't an issue, Barry Bonds would have been in on the first ballot, and he was basically jerk most of the years that he played.
We're talking about doing something that may have had an impact on the actual games being played. Pete Rose was a great player, but he shouldn't have bet on baseball while he was a manager. Should that really keep Charlie Hustle out of the Hall of Fame though? Insert excuses here. Let me ask you, if some non-descript manager had gotten caught betting on baseball, would it have been a scandal? You think?
Did steroids really create unfair competion? Is it unfair to exclude great players from the Hall of Fame just because they did what a bunch of other players of the time did? (And it wasn't against the rules then either.) Can you really keep guys who were never convicted, even exonerated, of steroid use out?
In order. Even if the players all had equal access to the PED's, it was unfair to those players who weren't using them. The players of the time knew they shouldn't have been juicing, otherwise they would have been out trying to get endorsement deals for the drugs. Yes, the MLB is complicit in allowing the steroid use, just like they allowed the color barrier. They were wrong in doing so in both cases. And the steroid-accused players? They embarrassed the game, pure and simple. If they got off, it was likely on a technicality (in my opinion). I wouldn't keep them out forever, but the MLB and the players are going to have to totally clean up their act first. Steroids in the league are going to have to be a thing of the past before these guys get let in.
No comments:
Post a Comment