HOF is not a story teller

Rate this Entry
I know there have been many thoughts and posts about yesterdays news about the HOF and nobody getting elected, but I thought I would also add my 2 cents for what it is worth. I was watching Mike and Mike this morning and Greeny was going on how it was such a travesty that nobody got in, and that the HOF is for telling the history of baseball and how we are leaving a huge chunk out. The HOF is not a story telling museum, it's a special place of HONOR, yes the history of the game is portraid on the walls in Cooperstown, but the men and women that are enshrined there, are there to be honored and admired for their accomplishments. How can we add someone to be honored when we know they have cheated. Is it fair to those who didn't? I say no. What would their speeches include to the fans and former players who would show up? I think any true fan knows the history of the game and what these players accomplshed in their career and don't have to see their plaques on the wall with the men and women who truly honored the game.
Tags: hof Add / Edit Tags


  1. valediction's Avatar
    We already have. Perry and Whitey Ford have admitted Doctoring baseballs, Schmidt and Aaron have admitted taking amphetamines which were illegal by 1970, Mays was known to have Red Juice. We have people in there who actively kept entire races out of the game so they wouldn't have to compete against them, and that's just guys off the top of my head. I'm sure if they dug as deep and hard into the goings on of the first 130 or so years of the game as they do the current generation, a shot in the butt would look like atrivial offense. Even the legality of certain drugs makes things grayer . How can you constantly compare players like Chipper, Pujols or A-Rod to Mantle, Williams, Mays, Schmidt, Aaron etc and know that while some of them ADMITTED taking amphetamines and are still held up as guys who played the game right, if today's players take the exact same substances, they are subject to testing, suspensions/bans, and being labeled as a cheater. The media and society in general protected players in past generations, if they had to face the intense scrutiny of today, the golden era may well have been more like iron ore. If you want to try and convince yourself that if the same things available today were available back then nobody in the Hall would have taken them, you are deluding yourself. They never had the opportunity. Jim Bouton was blacklisted for telling the public things that are commonplace news today. It was don't ask, don't tell to the extreme.
  2. dadandsoncards's Avatar
    Wow, you are very adament about your thoughts, and while I repectfully disagree, you do make some good points. With the technology today to keep players healthy and going day after day, and the pure waste of money owners are throwing at players, you would think that players today would be happy with what they have. Yes the players of yesterday may have taken some drugs to improve their preformance and to keep them going, but they weren't making the money players do today and they didn't have the health care that modern players do. Players today, are generally well paid, have access to the greatest docotors and helath care providers and still make the decision to cheat the game and the fans. I admit, I was in college when Sosa and Big Mac were battling the homerun title and I missed classes waiting for the moment when *62 was hit, I was so caught up in the moment, and maybe baseball did turn a blind eye to what was going on, but when I look back on what happened I feel cheated as a fan. Now I am not saying that the early players were completly honest in playing the game, but with that said they didn't get paid millions either. Players today in my opinion take PED's for greed, and greed alone. What other benefits can there be, you hit more homeruns, strikeout more players, you will get paid more. Plain and simple.
  3. valediction's Avatar
    But the problem is, you ONLY look at that era. SI did a three part series on how drugs were changing 1969. NOBODY looks at that time and the 15 or 20 years they were talking about and sees them as 'tainted' or 'cheaters'. Money has nothing to do with it unless you can draw a clear line and say 'here EXACTLY is where it would be ok to cheat, but not more. Human nature is we ALWAYS want more. Most people here are making or will be making significantly more than family did 30 or 50 or 90 years ago. Jim Bouton wrote in Ball Four that if there were a pill that guaranteed you 20 wins a year but took x years off your life, they'd be lining up to take it, and he was right. Anyone who didn't have the temptations can say they wouldn't have taken a shortcut, but the facts say different. Look at the thousands that line up for American Idol, or Shark Tank, or Hell's Kitchen, taking a chance at winning a recording contract and saving 5 years or more of busting their rear trying to get noticed and take a shortcut to fame and fortune. Look at the people who gamble, laying down money at insane odds to try and become an instant millionaire, look at people going on game shows, trying to win a years salary or ten years worth of money in an afternoon. People line up every day to take shortcuts and we glorify them. We always want more, faster and better than other had. I can appreciate wanting a 'clean' Hall of Fame, but we will never know who did what when with any degree of certainty, and to just blindly accept that players before a certain date were clean, but everyone after that is guilty until proven innocent. Look at Yaz, the guy never hit more than 20 HR a year in his first six seasons, then hits 44, 23, 40, and 40 the next four, the five years after that he hit 12-19 per year. Imagine Alex Gordon suddenly exploding for 40+ HR four out of the next five years, followed by a drop back to 10-15/season, and tell me people wouldn't think something was up?