Olney: A-Rod won't make the Hall if he hits 600 or 6000 homers
Aug 5, 2010, 10:02 AM EDT
I scoffed this morning when I read George Vecsey’s statement this morning that, 600 homers or no, A-Rod will never get into the Hall of Fame. But maybe he’s not wrong. Buster Olney — who is on record as saying he will vote for A-Rod when he comes up for consideration — takes a look around the BBWAA and the veteran’s committee and thinks that Rodriguez’s chances are grim:
I’ve voted for McGwire, and I will vote for Clemens and Bonds and
Rodriguez, because within the context of their era — a time when most
of the best players were probably using drugs — they were the best
players . . . But that view is clearly in the minority among voting members of the
Baseball Writers’ Association. And that means that Rodriguez, an
acknowledged user for performance-enhancing drugs, is never getting into
the Hall of Fame, no matter if he hits 600 or 6,000 homers.
I sure hope he’s wrong. Not because I care so much about Rodriguez’s fate for its own sake, but because I’d hate to see the Hall of Fame become an utterly irrelevant institution. Which is exactly what it would be if it completely ignores the accomplishments of an entire era’s best players.
Olney nails it here: Bonds, Clemens and A-Rod all used, but so too did a great number of their peers. By some estimates the majority of them. While we can argue about some borderline cases like Rafael Palmiero and maybe even McGwire, to think that, PEDs or not, that Alex Rodriguez wouldn’t have still been among the best of his era is rather silly.
-
- Old Gator - Aug 5, 2010 at 10:24 AM
-
A dedicated wing of the hall for the steroid era solves it all. Plus, building it provides jobs and tax revenue. Even a Republican could see that, despite how obvious it is. It’s a win-win proposition.
-
- BC - Aug 5, 2010 at 10:29 AM
-
No way he makes it. Which is wrong, I agree.
And yes, the Hall Of Fame is going to become irrelevant. The Pete Rose thing started it, and now you’ll have at least a dozen or so players left out because of the PED mess. And everntually, it’ll be something else – the next generation of PED, or whatever. They’re on a slippery slope toward irrelevance.
The scary potential thing out there is… what happens if they start taking people OUT of the Hall of Fame if things are discovered after the fact? I heard some rumblings to that end. Can you imagine if (I’ll use a real example) the HOF decided they’d boot Kirby Puckett out of the Hall because of all the disgusting things that were discovered about him after he was in? Only a matter of time before an elected HOF’er is outed as far as using PED’s. Then what?
PS. Here’s a link to a Frank Deford column detailing Kirby Puckett’s dark side. Good read.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1028246/index.htm
-
- miked2 - Aug 5, 2010 at 10:33 AM
-
The players should be in and the plaques should tell their story. That way when we find out guys who are already in have used, just change the plaque rather than ex-communicate them.
-
- Chipmaker - Aug 5, 2010 at 10:35 AM
-
Any voter who considers him (or her)self incapable of evaluating relative greatness from ANY era of baseball should either disqualify himself, or be disqualified, from voting. Ever.
If there were “Shakespearoids” to make one a better writer, they would all have ten dealers on speed dial.
Every writer who was covering a team or national beat during the steroids era (pick whatever endpoint years you want) should be DQ’d from ever being considered for the Spink Award, as they all, every one, completely blew it.
There’s a reason there is no Pulitzer for sports writing.
-
- Saints97 - Aug 5, 2010 at 10:36 AM
-
Should the hall build a separate wing for bigots, cheaters, and drug addicts, too? The place is full of them. What is the performance-enhancing-difference between greenies and steroids? I don’t know, but neither do the members of the BBWAA.
The Hall is already a meaningless institution, and it’s because of the hypocrisy of the BBWAA.
-
- JimmyY - Aug 5, 2010 at 10:38 AM
-
However tainted the records, Clemens, Bonds, Rodriguez do belong there. Just don’t want to listen to their speeches once inducted since it should say on the plaques, “….after much controversy over the use of PED, Bonds was admitted,” blah, blah, blah. Hah, love to see that written for eternity on their HOF plaques.
-
- Kevin S. - Aug 5, 2010 at 10:40 AM
-
Does the segregated era or the greenie era have it’s own wing?
-
- Simon DelMonte - Aug 5, 2010 at 10:43 AM
-
I think that by the time A-Rod’s fifteen year window closes, though, the membership of the BBWAA will have changed a lot. Younger writers, or bloggers, or whatever comes along next, will see things differently. It seems that way already.
-
- ARCADIAN - Aug 5, 2010 at 10:45 AM
-
Doesnt matter, Onced Juiced always Juiced!
He’ll have an asterisk all his life!
He shouldnt be allowed to play, once a player cheats they shouldnt play professionally, or for money.
he should be flipping burgers.
you’ll never see me wear any sponsored stuff by him.
Once a loser always a LOSER!
Also if they going to let cheater in HOF then they should let pete rose come back!
-
- YankeesfanLen - Aug 5, 2010 at 10:50 AM
-
Excellent point. I think Olney is a harbinger that many open minded future members should ascribe to.
-
- Detroit Michael - Aug 5, 2010 at 10:50 AM
-
One can’t look at the current BBWAA voting pattern on McGwire or other known or widely suspected steroid users and extrapolate that the some voting pattern will hold true in perpetuity for all methods of being inducted into the Hall of Fame.
More specifically, I believe that Alex Rodriguez will eventually be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame sometime in the next hundred years.
-
- Md23Rewls - Aug 5, 2010 at 11:03 AM
-
Gotta love the moral soap box that has become HoF voting. I’m guessing voters conveniently forget that one of the reasons steroids became so prevalently acceptable is that the media completely turned its head on the issue. What? Steroids? Nah, don’t worry about it. Let’s write some more articles about Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa saving baseball!
-
- Jonny5 - Aug 5, 2010 at 11:03 AM
-
If A-rod or any other know steroid user gets into the HOF before Pete Rose, it’ll be a travesty. And extremely unbalanced as far as fair goes…
-
- poopoo - Aug 5, 2010 at 11:04 AM
-
Yes, let’s boot out all HOF members who displayed any character weaknesses. Start with Babe Ruth, the greatest philanderer of them all.
-
- paul - Aug 5, 2010 at 11:07 AM
-
Take it in the context of their era. Lots of guys did drugs. Would the best drug using players still be the best players if their were not drugs? Who knows. Vote them in.
People talk out of both sides of their mouths on this. A lot of the same writers, media, fans said Tony Perez and Jim Rice did not belong in the HOF because of they never hit 400 – 500 HR’s. They were comparing them to drug era users home run numbers.
Imagine if they used PED’s in their day? Those two guys would leave a trail of dead 3rd basemen.
Pete Rose and Bert Blyleven for HOF!
-
- SouthofHeaven - Aug 5, 2010 at 11:08 AM
-
What’s going to tip the scales is when they let Ortiz in. Because sure he used, but he’s a nice guy! He looks me in the eye when I interview him! The ensuing outrage is going to tip the scales for Bonds, A-Rod, etc.
-
- SouthofHeaven - Aug 5, 2010 at 11:09 AM
-
Well I agree with your last statement.
-
- Md23Rewls - Aug 5, 2010 at 11:15 AM
-
There is a 0% chance they let Ortiz in. Not because of the steroid stuff, but because his numbers are not HoF numbers. He only has 340 career home runs. If he gets in with half of the homers that Rodriguez has and the same steroid fingerprint, then they might as well dismantle the Hall of Fame and call it quits.
And no (because I’m sure some people would bring this up) him having a good 2004 postseason does not warrant his entry.
-
- Beanster - Aug 5, 2010 at 11:17 AM
-
At what point does the Hall become more a reflection of the writers’ voting biases than about the players themselves? On second thought, we probably passed that point long ago.
-
- Steve-0 - Aug 5, 2010 at 11:18 AM
-
That’s all well and good except David Ortiz isn’t a Hall of Famer. His numbers aren’t good enough so the steroid issue as it has to do with his Hall of Fame case is irrelevant.
-
- Md23Rewls - Aug 5, 2010 at 11:21 AM
-
I think the attitude of the game towards steroids vs gambling should matter here. Steroid usage, while a no-no these days, was relatively acceptable in baseball circa 2000ish. We all like to think of it as this big black mark, but really, there was a pro-drug atmosphere that made it easy to just go with the flow. For Rose, though, there hasn’t been a pro-gambling atmosphere in baseball since the early 1900′s. I think steroid usage is more pardonable than gambling, given the context, though I agree that Rose should be in there regardless.
-
- The Ol Goaler - Aug 5, 2010 at 11:36 AM
-
That point was passed in the first election for the Hall of Fame in 1936; Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner, Christy Mathewson and Walter Johnson were elected by the BBWAA — NONE were unanimously elected… that means that somebody didn’t vote for EACH of these guys! (Cy Young, Nap Lajoie, and Tris Speaker got in in ’37.)
-
- Phillyfan1 - Aug 5, 2010 at 11:42 AM
-
The hall of fame is a joke. Former and current players should vote on inductions. Not the writers.
-
- OldNo7 - Aug 5, 2010 at 11:46 AM
-
I agree that pete Rose ought to be in the Hall of Fame as well. But before we deify him as a “clean” player or someone whose transgressions were different/more innocent than Bonds, Rodriguez or McGwire, let’s remember this:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=steroids&num=2
and this:
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/06/the-story-of-pete-roses-corked-bat.html.php
We have no way of knowing that Pete Rose DIDN’T cheat by taking steroids, or taking amphetamines. And the evidence that he did cheat by corking his bat seems pretty strong. I’ve made this point in these comments many times before–Pete Rose’s moral compass was not exactly the strongest in baseball history, and so to say he never fudged seems naive.
Let’s keep that in mind when we’re pitting Pete Rose against the modern steroid guys in our Hall of Fame arguments.
-
- Jonny5 - Aug 5, 2010 at 11:50 AM
-
Rose did not change the game with his gambling. Rose didn’t get more power and put more over the fence with gambling. Rose is one of, if not the the best hitter ever. I don’t care how much steroids were winked off in the past, his penalty far outweighs the crime, when you compare it to the roid users.
