January 19, 20179 yr Rather than hijack the Hall of Fame results thread, I will start a discussion here on the Hall voting and worthiness of certain players for the Hall. One discussion I would like to have with other posters is Pete Rose versus Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. As I was thinking about the three most prominent Hall of Fame worthy players and why they aren't in, I thought there were similarities between the three. All three violated baseball rules. Rose of course committed the number one rule violation by betting on baseball. Steroids were on baseball's banned list in 1991 so Bonds and Clemens also violated a well known rule. All three vehemently denied they violated the rule. Rose has since come clean. Bonds has admitted he used but claims he did it unknowingly (riiiight ....). Clemens I believe is still in the complete denial stage like Rose was for years. So let's discuss: What is different about the candidacy of Rose, Bonds, Clemens (other than the obvious ban on Rose)? Who should be in and why? How do you think steroids users should be treated by the Hall? Is there a level of proof of use you need to see to determine whether a player is ok to vote in? What would you change about the HOF voting process? Is 15 years eligibility ok? Is limiting the voters to voting for only 10 players a problem? Should other people beyond the writers be allowed to vote ... e.g. baseball announcers, scorekeepers, ...?
January 19, 20179 yr I'd put them all in, personally. However, I'm okay with Rose not making it since he was banned from the sport. As for Bonds/Clemens, etc., they should be in. They didn't break a baseball rule (although I guess technically illegal drug use breaks a federal law). They performed at a high level over an extended period (were they taking steroids the whole time?). Other players were juicing but failed to achieve the level of success. I just think they need to go in. I'd also be okay with an exhibit discussing the steroid era and also naming names of people who were found guilty.
January 19, 20179 yr Rose is a Hall of Fame and historical player regardless what the Commissioner's office says. Anyone who follows baseball knows that. What he did in his post-playing days still doesn't change what he accomplished as a player on the field. He doesn't have to be listed at Cooperstown to be a HOF player in the minds of most baseball fans.
January 19, 20179 yr Author Bonds and Clemens did break a baseball rule. Steroids were placed on baseball's banned substance list in 1991.
January 19, 20179 yr All three deserve to be in based on their numbers. I'm absolutely fine with Rose never sniffing the HoF though because I find him to be one of the most miserable tools in the history of the planet.
January 19, 20179 yr With Bud Selig in, Bonds and Clemens have to be right next to him to drive home the point of how he rejuvenated the popularity of the game. I don't really have an opinion on Pete. Lift the ban or don't. Won't stop anyone in this area from considering him an all-timer.
January 19, 20179 yr Author Did Rose ever bet against the Reds? No evidence he did but he broke baseball's number one rule by betting on baseball. I believe the worst thing that ever happened for Rose was the death of Bart Giamatti. If he had not died and stayed as commissioner for another 5 years or so, I believe there is a chance he would have lived up to the spirit of the agreement Rose signed with baseball and reinstated Rose. Instead, he passed and Fay Vincent along with John Dowd were in control and carried out their vendetta against Rose.
January 19, 20179 yr They should all be in. It's not a Hall of Morals and Values. It's a place for the best baseball players ever and these 3 are some of the best.
January 19, 20179 yr They should all be in. It's not a Hall of Morals and Values. It's a place for the best baseball players ever and these 3 are some of the best. Agreed.
January 19, 20179 yr Did Rose ever bet against the Reds? I agree Pete should be in. But the argument that he never bet against Red's is a weak one to try to get him in. When Rose didn't bet on the Red's, that was a signal for the guys Rose bet with, to bet against the Red's.
January 19, 20179 yr I agree Pete should be in. But the argument that he never bet against Red's is a weak one to try to get him in. When Rose didn't bet on the Red's, that was a signal for the guys Rose bet with, to bet against the Red's. Yeah, I agree it's a weak argument as well. Whether he bet on them or not. Whether he bet on any games. It still doesn't change the fact, nor was it an advantage to him, to hit that many baseballs in his career. He deserves and belongs in the Hall of Fame. The others took a substance to gain an advantage. I'd be okay with them joining, but would not advocate for it.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.