No red blooded American does something when someone else is willing to do it for them.

This is presumptuous and utterly lacking in etiquette on my part, I know, but I just can’t decide:

1) Which is why the volunteer army is dominated by green-blooded Vulcans.

2) So that’s what happened to American manufacturing.

3) I ask you not what you can do for your country, but what you don’t have to do when someone does it for you.

Your thoughts.

You tried to twist the fact that the hall didnt say anything to fit your arguement. Which you do alot. Maybe if the future you will look at what the other possible reasons for something might instead of just coming up with 1 that helps proves your point. It will keep you from looking like a fool in the future.

so…does he not see that he is speaking out of both sides of his mouth?

That’s not true and not even close to a viable alternative. That would be the equivalent of asking teams to stop using relief pitchers and to go back to doing what they used to do.

It’s not the same. The character clause has been since Landis (citation needed), and yet was never invoked when players who were caught cheating during the game(!) and still voted in.

You don’t think that some past writers refused to vote for certain players based on stuff other than baseball? Did every single writer in America vote for Jackie Robinson? I don’t think so.

So past ignorance is justification for future ignorance? Good call!

Again, your just upset because they’re not voting the way you want them to vote.

Yeah, no. I’m upset b/c we have a bunch of individuals, with a 5th grade gym understanding of steroids*, act like the morality police when they’ve conveniently never invoked this clause before.

*ask yourself this, why is taking steroids so bad? If it’s cheating the game, then so is doctoring the baseball, throwing spitballs, corking your bat, etc. Is it because it’s a chemical enhancement that gets you back on the field? Well so is cortisone (which is a steroid btw), tommy john surgery, and other treatments. If it makes you a better player than you were before, so is Lasik surgery. How about just some consistency from the writers, or is that too much to ask?

Right now the BBWAA is most closely as an entity “Blaine the Mono”

I’m no historian either. Do we have any here who are willing to comment?

You don’t think that some past writers refused to vote for certain players based on stuff other than baseball? Did every single writer in America vote for Jackie Robinson? I don’t think so.

No, and for whatever reason some members of the voting body believe that unanimity itself — speaking of non-baseball stuff — is a pertinent issue.

But that is no reason to encourage voters to go even farther off the rails. We salute the ballplayer, not the man. That is clearly the established practice. Right Cap?

In sum, let’s not add special provisos for particular groups according to our newly emerging ethics regarding PED use — or regarding anything else. We apply our ethics to our era. We honor that past according to the ethics of its era. Seems like a “viable alternative” to me, and indeed is the implicit standard of prior practice.

I’d insist that all and only things stat related be taken into account, and hope the members follow that guide. I’d also invoke discussion about it between members so when people compare the numbers, they have all the facts and all angles so they can make an educated decision. Right now they shoot from the hip as evidenced with Bert B. He was excluded because he wasn’t popular. Even sportswriters didn’t know how good he was, even after looking at his numbers. To be honest it takes some serious Mathmatical ability to take everything into account and form a good decision. One thing is for certain to me, the HOF should not be about anything but quality of play. And taking into account suspicion is seriously overstepping the boundries of fairness. Put them in, also put in a whole story about the era if that atones a person’s moral obligation.. But don’t leave out the best players for any reason, the HOF is no place to punish.

You don’t think that some past writers refused to vote for certain players based on stuff other than baseball? Did every single writer in America vote for Jackie Robinson? I don’t think so.

Again, your just upset because they’re not voting the way you want them to vote.

By then candidates coming on to the ballot for the HOF will have been subject to testing. I suspect most people here would say that, for example, A-Rod should be in the Hall for his accomplishments, even though many might not like him, or his “failings”.

Some of the BBWAA will steadfastly refuse to vote for people like him, obviously, although by 2022 the voter profile is likely to be somewhat different from what it is today, but what about, for example, Albert Pujols? He can be seen as the “testing era” equivalent of Jeff Bagwell. Will the BBWAA ignore the fact that he will have maintained, till retirement, a clean record, or will the same criticims about his size, the spike in his HR’s from minors to majors and the othr insinuations bandied about re Bagwell be applied to him too?

For the avoidance of doubt, there is nothing adverse imputed to Pujols – he merely strikes me as a good example of what some writers seem to be calling the “well he must be juiced if he is so good” class.

Instead of telling me how bad it is, why not present a viable alternative?

The writers never cared about character before, why should they now? Let the writers continue to vote, but rather than change the game, just continue how it was done previously.

A no-hitter? Fine. Send the rosin bag to Cooperstown. Maybe a mustard-stained napkin that blew past first base. Ziploc baggie of dirt from the home plate area. Grass clippings.

Include a note that, if they want anything from the player(s), they should get over to eBay. Quickly.

Funnel the auction receipts into lobbying campaigns.

Over time, I tend to think sentiment will move closer to the position Craig articulated and that others in this comment thread have mentioned

The problem is that not everyone has that “time”. Take for instance Kevin Brown, who has dropped off the ballot for not getting the requisite 5% of the votes, yet arguments have been made comparing him favorably to Schilling, and better than Morris. Brown no longer has the gift of time.

Or another instance, we can look at Bagwell. Certain writers, as mentioned here by Craig and anothers, wanted to wait on Bagwell to see, whatever they wanted to see. But imagine every writer took that stance? Thus no one voted for him, and he’d drop off the ballot as well.

It’s in the eye of the beholder. Its unspecific and undefinable. It really is discretion. Its telling somebody to “do the right thing.” Whatever that means.

As I said up above, this isn’t about steroids. Its about whether or not the voters should be able to use their discretion. I think they should. In a roundabout way, many of you think they shouldn’t.

Instead of telling me how bad it is, why not present a viable alternative? How would you design a fair and equitable system for voting people into the HOF? If you let fans vote, then every ball player to wear pinstripes or red socks would be in. If you let Selig do it, you know he’ll built a throne for himself right on top of the Ruth exhibit. If you make the voting rules more rigid or the list less long, you’re basically going with the Selig option. What would you do?

The shame of it is that if MLB and the Hall took proactive steps, they could find a way to fix the problem; instead, it’s going to be festering sore that lasts well into the 2030s and beyond

I don’t think it will fester that long. People don’t stay on the cusp of outrage — they turn away. If there’s no redress, the Hall will just settle into a zone of import somewhere in the neighborhood of the Golden Globes.

“Cheating” — your judgment, and we don’t need to argue it. But if you don’t want to kick Burleigh Grimes out, it’s pretty weak to me.

In your Hall, they had better also have an exhibit about self-importance, hucksterism, and moralizing in 21st Century sportswriting, or visitors of the future won’t understand why in blazes Bonds and Clemens were treated specially by the BBWAA. If there are any.

What these guys might not get is a bronze plaque in one room of the Museum. These players will all be mentioned in the Hall, some more so than others. The history of baseball will not be altered by the refusal of sportswriters to give them a bronze plaque and the ability to write HOF after there name.

Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character. Character.

(1) Joe Jackson was found not guilty in a court of law, but that doesn’t mean he was innocent of the crimes of which he was accused, nor does it clear him of wrongdoing in the case in question, and it definitely doesn’t clear him if baseball chooses to hold him to a higher standard than society.

(2) I believe Hank has admitted to using PEDs in the form of amphetamines, so perhaps the mythical title of home run king belongs to the Babe. Regardless, the guy who hit the most home runs in MLB history is Barry Bonds.

(3) I think you’re misreading Craig if you think he’s alleging steroid use by Bagwell. He’s putting him in the category because several BBWAA voters believe, with no evidence save anecdotal information, pictures, and allusions to his minor league numbers, that Bagwell juiced. Craig’s defended Bagwell from such crap, but he’s right to note that it’s unlikely that Bagwell will make the Hall because too many voters want to punish everyone who might have juiced, and live in fear of the idea that they vote for a guy who later is proven to be a cheater.

Most players that find themselves in Bagwell’s position could easily be building support, but virtually all of them have hidden behind the fifth amendment. Instead of becoming advocates for educating kids on the dangers of steroids and “greenies” they’ve virtually disappeared. Instead of admitting anything, they’ve denied everything and avoided the subject at every turn. Instead of being the “Larger Than Life” characters that they’ve been throughout their careers, they’ve become hermits. Hell, Bagwell chose to tell the world he doesn’t care if people juice. Is that really the kind message that the above-referenced writer wants to send to his son? The character clause might not be perfect, but none of these guys, save for maybe McGwire, are helping their case.

I think for you this has nothing to do with steroids. Steroids provide a convenient argument for your “anti-character clause” platform. But sports aren’t just about numbers, statistics and records. Sports are about culture, society and ultimately, our values. We value competition, good character and success. The HOF voting process attempts to encompass that. Does it always work out perfectly? No. Is it pretty darn good? Yes!

The ironic thing about Shoeless Joe Jackson is that his exclusion has been the best thing that could have happened to his legacy. As a casual fan, I can only name 2-3 players from his era. All the other guys from his era that got into the HOF have virtually been forgotten. Shoeless Joe had goddamn movies made about him! I’m not saying that Palmeiro, Bagwell, Clemens and McGwire should be jumping up for joy over their potential exclusion. I think they (and all of you) should be reminded that their legacy doesn’t end with the Hall of Fame.

Idelson’s quotes read like a politican’s and, if I had to hazard an educated guess, reflect the current sentiment in the mainstream world of the Hall of Fame establishment (including the adminstrators, the writers, MLB, etc.). Over time, I tend to think sentiment will move closer to the position Craig articulated and that others in this comment thread have mentioned — that baseball’s attempt to whitewash its own history out of collective embarrassment will likely fail, and only diminish the institutions who seek to do so. And people will come to realize this, and eventually, even the worst of the cheats will be inducted if their numbers justify it.

The shame of it is that if MLB and the Hall took proactive steps, they could find a way to fix the problem; instead, it’s going to be festering sore that lasts well into the 2030s and beyond, as the controversy over whether Clemons or Bonds or whomever should be in the Hall will recur every year until they’re off the ballot, and then beyond (based on the Pete Rose experience). Then again, asking Bud Selig to take a proactive step on anything is like asking Congress to spend less money. The Hall will be diminished, and baseball will be further diminished.

On the good news side, it should drive blog traffic for Craig and boost sports talk radio numbers.

One other thought — the numbers cited earlier on the Hall’s declining foot traffic should mean something to them, and it’s all the fans can do. I think it would mean even more if players (and perhaps individual franchises, like the Astros) began protesting inane Hall voting decisions by refusing to support the Hall and send them exhibits. Imagine if Roy Halladay suddenly decided that nothing from his playoff no-hitter was going to the Hall. Or if the Astros accomplsied a historic feat and opted to withhold stuff from the hall due its failure to recognize Bagwell. I realize such a course of action ahs its dangers (the Yankees doing this to protest Big Stein’s exclusion might qualify as a mid-point on the slippery slope). I also realize that they would be punishing the Hall for the decisions made by the writers, but the Hall gave the ballot to the writers, and they can change the ballot if they so wish so as to outline clear standards for the voters to follow. They may ignore them, but at least we’ll have real standards in place.

But, it’s a museum. If its director and board decide it should commemorate and celebrate the way things were up to the late 20th century, and then the way things weren’t in the late 20th century, they’re free to do so, of course.

And we can choose to be paying customers or not.