Post by Paul Sylvain on Jan 12, 2013 6:21:57 GMT -5
What's funny, Allen (and this might make me seem a bit hypocritical), is that I've long felt Pete Rose deserves his place in the Hall, given what "Charlie Hustle" gave of himself for the game. However, I feel that Bonds, Clemens, etc., should never be given that honor. Maybe the line is that Rose achieved what he did on the field without the performance enhancement drugs, whereas at least part of what the other guys did was a direct result of them. It can be argued that without the stuff, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. I don't know. The Hall can do what it wants (and does) . It isn't bound by the rulings of a court of law in making its selections or barring players. I doubt we'll ever see Rose in it, but if that holds true, the suspect records of the others should be erased and their eligibility for the Hall blocked permanently.
Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 12, 2013 9:53:41 GMT -5
I would agree. Frankly, I never liked Rose, but I probably wouldn't have liked Ty Cobb much either, but that has nothing to do with their achievements on the field. As you say, Rose's were entirely due to his own effort, without any illegal drugs. He was not a gifted athlete either and worked very hard to excel, which paid off for him. I wouldn't be apoplectic if he got in the HOF, but I don't think he ever will because baseball does not want to leave the impression that gambling can ever be condoned. The worst aspect of the Rose story is that he was just so stupid. As I understand it, there was no prohibition against betting on games, only on betting on games involving your own team. You'd think he could have navigated that!
Regarding gambling, it looks like the 1919 World Series is officially in the record books, despite the convictions of several White ("Black") Sox players for throwing the series:
Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 12, 2013 11:31:47 GMT -5
One additional thought; Years ago I read Mickey Mantle and Whitey Ford's book "Whitey and Mickey - An Autobiography of the Yankee Years." Bear in mind that these were two of my all-time biggest baseball heroes and that I grew up a die-hard Yankees fan only 20 miles from NYC. My dad took me to many games at "The Stadium" (as we always called it), as well as Ebbets Field and the Polo Grounds. Rizzuto was my hero. I had many fond memories of those days, although I've come to realize what it's like on the other side, watching the Yankees win, year after year, when you are NOT a fan of theirs.
In the Mantle-Ford book, Ford spoke repeatedly about how much he and Elston Howard cheated, including during World Series games. They would wet the ball and Howard would drop it while catching, creating a film of mud that made it a spitball. Ford always wore what looked like his wedding ring when pitching, which many people found very touching. It turns out that he had a sharp point welded onto the ring so that he could cut the ball throughout the game, also illegal.
I heard Brooks Robinson and Chuck Thompson talking about the book during an Orioles radio broadcast one night. Robinson, who really is Mr. Nice Guy and rarely has anything negative to say about anyone, seemed really irritated by the book's revelations. He even said something like "Well, if Ford's an admitted cheater, what's he doing in the Hall of Fame?"
I would ask the same question. Also, Gaylord Perry made a career of convincing everyone he was doctoring the ball, but he's in the Hall too. I'm not sure that it wasn't just a good act in Perry's case; was he ever found cheating?
“I knew, even as a boy, that to love this world one must keep one’s distance” -- Bishop Daisy - "King of Hearts"
Post by Valerie Hyatt Martin on Jan 13, 2013 0:10:22 GMT -5
There seems to be a difference of opinion on who used steroids and what criteria the writers (or any of us) are using to decide. Rafael Palmeiro is the only one (we know of) who tested positive while he was playing. I think there is real good evidence Bonds and Clemens were using. Alex Rodriguez and Andy Pettite have admitted use. I'm not happy with voters who decided this is the steroid era and no one is above suspicion, even without anyone ever thinking, hearing, perceiving etc. that a player used.
Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 13, 2013 10:19:27 GMT -5
It can be a slippery slope. Ther's some murkiness regarding how well the testing was done. Baseball is run by the owners; the commissioner no longer has the independence he once had, so some feel that the testing is suspect. After all, if you are an owner who has sunk millions into a player, who has delivered big stats for you, you are bound to resist efforts to look too closely and possibly lose that investment. I know I'm cynical and you are right to defend due process, but these are very high rollers with a lot at stake, so it wouldn't surprise me if there was some jiggery-pokery going on with the testing.
I once asked my orthopedist if he thought Bonds was juicing and he burst out laughing. He said he only had to look at the befor & after pictures to see that he was loaded with steroids.
Post by loucapitano on Jan 13, 2013 12:18:43 GMT -5
I agree, integrity, sportsmanship and character where clearly violated by the players NOT chosen for the Hall this year. In a pervase way, the Hall may want to feature an exhibit showing the scandal of the "steroids era" to call attention to how much of a black eye it gave the game and how it threatened the future of baseball. I don't know if the trustees of the Hall would want to keep throwing such negative attention to the scandal, but I think it would be cathartic and demonstrate how serious the "juicing" problem was and how unacceptable it is to the game and the fans. Lou fro Long Island