|
Post by theforty on Jan 10, 2007 15:49:44 GMT -5
I think we all could agree that HOF balloting is part popularity contest. We might debate on how much it is a popularity contest, but clearly some players are helped and some are hurt in the balloting due to their relationship with the press.
Now Tony Gwynn is a positive, likeable, popular player with 8 batting titles. A clear cut selection, and am not surprised by his high vote total.
Cal Ripkin Jr. has something extra working in his favor, though. To many sportswriters (sorry, sports journalists), Cal represented some mythical work ethic that:
a. The writers themselves would embody, but were they gifted with the required athletic ability. b. Players used to have, in the good ol' days, but was lost somewhere along the way (probably when free agency was granted, those rich and lazy ingrates).
My opinion of this viewpoint can probably be inferred from my tone. Cal was a hell of a player, a HOF caliber player, but he was built up to be more than he was because he didn't take a day off. I have the utmost repect for THE STREAK, but if I had to choose between Tony or Cal - I'd probably take Tony.
|
|
|
Post by theburns on Jan 10, 2007 17:52:53 GMT -5
Ha! I know what that's from!
|
|
|
Post by harrypoland1683 on Jan 10, 2007 20:40:09 GMT -5
Today Mike Rosenberg made a good point regarding McGwire. McGwire told the congressional clowns that he was not there to talk about the past, yet getting into the HOF is about what you did in the past. Sure, steroids were not banned in baseball but part of the game is more than the statistics: it is how you conduct yourself. If someone took steroids to give them an edge they would not otherwise have through physical, emotional, or mental work than they were not being honest to himself or the sport. For me it is not a matter of what the rules said, it is a matter of integrity.
I also think the behavior outside of the game matters as well. If we count only what is between the baselines than we are saying the game and the players are mere abstractions, much like the DBS. The balls, scores, fields, and players are real, so what they do in the spirit and letter of the law on and off the field does not matter. Furthermore, we are placing the achievements in a children’s game above how an adult ought to conduct himself.
Denying the privilege of the HOF to a player is not denying that the player was great or perhaps the greatest; it is a statement by those who elect, regardless of their personal fitness, that we humans are expected to behave with a certain amount of integrity in all aspects our life - personal and professional.
|
|
|
Post by harlem on Jan 11, 2007 7:16:44 GMT -5
Today Mike Rosenberg made a good point regarding McGwire. McGwire told the congressional clowns that he was not there to talk about the past, yet getting into the HOF is about what you did in the past. Sure, steroids were not banned in baseball but part of the game is more than the statistics: it is how you conduct yourself. If someone took steroids to give them an edge they would not otherwise have through physical, emotional, or mental work than they were not being honest to himself or the sport. For me it is not a matter of what the rules said, it is a matter of integrity. Hypothetical question: In 10 years, steroids are permitted in baseball. Is it okay to allow him in the Hall of Fame?
|
|
|
Post by theforty on Jan 11, 2007 7:47:13 GMT -5
If the BBWAA want to adopt a stance that Mark benefited unfairly from alleged steroid use, and keep him out of the Hall, then they are welcome to it. I understand and can appreciate the viewpoint from which they are coming from.
I personally like the idea that players are held to the standard that, "we humans are expected to behave with a certain amount of integrity in all aspects our life - personal and professional", as long as the BBWAA is consistent.[/u]
But, the BBWAA, on the whole, has been notoriously fickle, and many of their decisions do not stand up to logical scrutiny. When pointed out, these decisions are often defended with self-serving arguments that contradict that which the BBWAA, on the whole, had previously claimed was important. I don't know Ken Rosenthal's view on Pete Rose or Joe Jackson, but if he is anything but completely against their enshrinement, then I have a hard time buying his personal commitment to upholding integrity.
While it is conceptually easy to take a black and white approach to upholding integrity with regards to enshrinement in the hall, as a practical matter, it is extremely difficult to establish what constitutes an acceptable level of integrity, as everyone has compromised their integrity on some level at some point in their career. Hell, you would have a hard time finding a group of people who could even agree on a framework wherein 'A is worse the B is worse the C is worse than ...' by which to even begin to evaluate the integrity of players.
Now, this isn't to say we should stop judging the integrity of players. Rather, it is intended to point out it is not as cut and dried as Ken has presented, and further, it is really easy to fall into the trap of selectively applying different standards of integrity to players, because it serves whatever purpose/agenda a particular writer is supporting at the time. Unless the BBWAA continues to refuse Mark and others of his ilk from being enshrined (unlikely), this stance, to my way of thinking, is only empty words and posturing.
And this all ignores the fact that there has not been any publicly disclosed evidence that McGwire took steroids and the fact that are many other players have been enshrined who had been known to cheat to get an edge at the time of their enshrinement.
|
|
|
Post by harlem on Jan 11, 2007 8:48:58 GMT -5
Unless the BBWAA continues to refuse Mike and others of his ilk from being enshrined (unlikely), this stance, to my way of thinking, is only empty words and posturing. Mike who? Mordecai?
|
|
|
Post by ndbooster on Jan 11, 2007 9:37:36 GMT -5
While I think the steroid issue is a fair question to ask in determining McGwire's worthiness for the Hall, something has always bothered me about "character" as it is interpreted by the BBWAA writers. In the criteria listed that determine a player's merit for the Hall, personal character is listed last, meaning it is the LEAST important of the factors considered. Character is rarely cited when a player is enshrined; surely no player is in the Hall solely because of character. But when a player is not admitted, we always hear about that guy's "attitude" or "personal issues", not that his stats weren't up to standard. I guess what I'm getting at is: should "character" be a factor at all, or is it simply a cover for the writers either to allow players in the Hall for "intangibles" not part of the stat sheet, or to deny players for reasons that have little to do with baseball? I don't know myself, but I've always wondered.
|
|
|
Post by Doobs on Jan 11, 2007 10:02:12 GMT -5
It's simply a cover.
|
|
|
Post by theforty on Jan 11, 2007 10:48:49 GMT -5
Unless the BBWAA continues to refuse Mike and others of his ilk from being enshrined (unlikely), this stance, to my way of thinking, is only empty words and posturing. Mike who? Mordecai? Yup, just re-read my post and corrected it. Sorry.
|
|