2013 Baseball Hall of Fame

[HedleyLamarr]

So what's the argument against Piazza?

White guy with a mustache.

Never trust a white guy with a mustache or a black guy without one.....

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I think the real lesson is to stop giving opportunities to feel self important to people who love to feel self important.

[cmm]

So what's the argument against Piazza?

His back wasn't hairy enough. Really. http://www.metstoday.com/8293/12-13-offseason/why-marty-noble-didnt-have-mike-piazza-on-his-hall-of-fame-ballot/

[Kramerica Industries]

The little rule about character and sportsmanship should, theoretically, knock Cobb out of the Hall, if we're actually going to take those rules seriously.

[pmoehrin]

The little rule about character and sportsmanship should, theoretically, knock Cobb out of the Hall, if we're actually going to take those rules seriously.

To me again it depends on how much value you put into it.

If your going to make it a primary argument for keeping somebody out, then it has to be used as a primary argument for putting someone in. It has to be both ways. Either your a bad person or you essentially just did the minimum of what was asked of you is how I think most people look at the character and integrity argument. I don't think its fair to make any argument like that into a pure negative and that's how I think alot of people look at it.

If your going to say even as great of a player Ty Cobb was his character was so morally reprehensible that he shouldn't be in, then I could say because Sean Casey was such a great character it should be enough to overcome his lack of production and put him in the Hall. I don't think anyone agrees with that assertion including myself, but if your going to make character and integrity actually be a significant part of whether or not somebody should get in, then it has to work both ways.

[Gothamite]

No, I think it's important that each generation apply the character clause as it sees fit. Judge each man by the standards of his era.

I'm angry beyond words that Pete Rose has inserted himself into the Hall of Fame conversation. Again. What he did was worse than Bonds and Clemens, in that there was an explicit rule against betting on baseball since well before he was born.

Not to mention ol' Petey then spent decades lying about and slandering the men who caught him. Now he thinks one little "sorry" delivered on a press release for his book somehow makes all that go away. He's a scumbag who shouldn't even be allowed into the Hall with a ticket.

[OnWis97]

So what's the argument against Piazza?

His back wasn't hairy enough. Really. http://www.metstoday...of-fame-ballot/

You know what, if people are going to not vote for guys because of "suspicion" of steroids, then this is roughly as valid as other rationales. Seriously. Of course, that's why I would not use "suspicion" as a criteria because we should be suspicious of everyone since the mid 1980s.

[Gothamite]

Piazza is the one I would definitely have put in this year. I'll be curious to see where his numbers are after the next vote.

[OnWis97]

Piazza is the one I would definitely have put in this year. I'll be curious to see where his numbers are after the next vote.

I'd suspect he and Biggio get in next year (though there is some stiff competition for votes). I think this was a one time "protest" because of the steroid-suspected/connected people on the ballot. Assuming they were clean, it was unfair to the both of them.

[rams80]

Piazza is the one I would definitely have put in this year. I'll be curious to see where his numbers are after the next vote.

I'd suspect he and Biggio get in next year (though there is some stiff competition for votes). I think this was a one time "protest" because of the steroid-suspected/connected people on the ballot. Assuming they were clean, it was unfair to the both of them.

People have been doing protest votes for the last few years. It's going to happen again (unless they start taking away ballots, which they should)

[Mac the Knife]

That said, what is equally asinine is that nearly 40% of voters opted to ignore the HOF's guidelines for induction in the cases of Bonds and Clemens, and to lesser degree McGwire and Palmiero. Based on their histories, these guys absolutely do not belong in the HOF, no matter their performance on the field, period. They were and are a permanent stain upon the game, and no honor should be bestowed them based on that.

If that were true then they shouldn't have even been on the ballot at all like Pete Rose or Shoeless Joe.

I agree. Sadly I don't make those rules.

[Mac the Knife]

The only argument I have against Rose being in is that he had it in his power to amend his crimes simply by apologizing for the most serous of crimes, because if if somebody in the position of Rose has an incentive not to try his hardest, you've effectively reduced baseball to professional wrestling. But even in the face of those crimes he still had the power to amend them and he chose to deny it because he was Pete Rose and he was above everyone else. I think that does need to be taken into consideration when discussing whether or not he should be in the Hall. I don't have an answer for what's right to do. I just simply say I understand both sides. Rose I think should be treated as a special case because of how he handled the situation.

I just finished re-reading Fay Vincent's book, "The Last Commissioner," which devotes the better end of a full chapter to the Pete Rose incident. Essentially there was no way in the world Rose was going to avoid being banned for life - once he had the evidence, Bart Giamatti would've done whatever was needed to accomplish that, even had Rose "fessed up" from the outset. Two subsequent actions sealed Rose's fate: Giamatti died and Rose, rather than do a mea culpa and make a concerted effort to straighten out his life, instead became a convicted felon who for 15 years denied his guilt... until a book deal made it financially beneficial to cop to an admission.

Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, et al., are in an essentially identical situation, in that they'll never admit to using steroids willingly (despite overwhelming evidence). The only real differences here are two fold: first, that the 'Roids Boys violated federal and/or state law but somehow not the rules of Baseball by doing what they did; and second, what these guys did literally impacted the game as it was played on the field. Rose, for all the bets he placed, likely never intentionally "threw" a game, impacting its outcome directly, to win a bet. So, in my book at least, Rose's sins (at least up to the point of his banishment; his continued denials afterward, though ludicrous, I'm not considering here) were far LESS egregious than those of these guys, whether a blind eye was turned to it by Baseball's powers that be at the time or not.

[OnWis97]

The only argument I have against Rose being in is that he had it in his power to amend his crimes simply by apologizing for the most serous of crimes, because if if somebody in the position of Rose has an incentive not to try his hardest, you've effectively reduced baseball to professional wrestling. But even in the face of those crimes he still had the power to amend them and he chose to deny it because he was Pete Rose and he was above everyone else. I think that does need to be taken into consideration when discussing whether or not he should be in the Hall. I don't have an answer for what's right to do. I just simply say I understand both sides. Rose I think should be treated as a special case because of how he handled the situation.

I just finished re-reading Fay Vincent's book, "The Last Commissioner," which devotes the better end of a full chapter to the Pete Rose incident. Essentially there was no way in the world Rose was going to avoid being banned for life - once he had the evidence, Bart Giamatti would've done whatever was needed to accomplish that, even had Rose "fessed up" from the outset. Two subsequent actions sealed Rose's fate: Giamatti died and Rose, rather than do a mea culpa and make a concerted effort to straighten out his life, instead became a convicted felon who for 15 years denied his guilt... until a book deal made it financially beneficial to cop to an admission.

Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, et al., are in an essentially identical situation, in that they'll never admit to using steroids willingly (despite overwhelming evidence). The only real differences here are two fold: first, that the 'Roids Boys violated federal and/or state law but somehow not the rules of Baseball by doing what they did; and second, what these guys did literally impacted the game as it was played on the field. Rose, for all the bets he placed, likely never intentionally "threw" a game, impacting its outcome directly, to win a bet. So, in my book at least, Rose's sins (at least up to the point of his banishment; his continued denials afterward, though ludicrous, I'm not considering here) were far LESS egregious than those of these guys, whether a blind eye was turned to it by Baseball's powers that be at the time or not.

I have a very hard time with that. To re-state a cliche about Rose, every time he did not bet on the Reds, he bet against 'em. I guess we cannot say how he managed the team, but incentive to play/rest guys certainly can be impacted by whether that "extra" is riding on it. In my book, betting on baseball is the absolute worst thing you can do for integrity of the game, aside from actually throwing games.

And while they were illegal, 'roids were not against MLB rules (as MLB wanted). I know I am in the minority, but I don't hold it against anyone using during that era if I have a vote. I do find it strange that we know Gaylord Perry cheated, but that kind of cheating is laughed off. It's a bit inconsistent.

[ElwoodCuse]

So, in my book at least, Rose's sins (at least up to the point of his banishment; his continued denials afterward, though ludicrous, I'm not considering here) were far LESS egregious than those of these guys, whether a blind eye was turned to it by Baseball's powers that be at the time or not.

No no no no. Not even close. Gambling almost destroyed baseball for good, and they are lucky that they had Babe Ruth to wash away the stink of a fixed World Series. It has been known for years, and posted in every MLB clubhouse, that you never ever ever bet on baseball.

There are nowhere near any bright-line rules about what counts as "cheating". There are rules cheats and unwritten rules cheats. There are ok drugs and bad drugs. There's not even a burden of proof for "cheating" anymore. Gaylord Perry can be in the Hall of Fame despite openly flaunting the rules, but Mike Piazza doesn't get in because a bunch of dudes think he was on some kind of drugs with no proof of anything at all? Garbage.

[The_Admiral]

Someone should get Gaylord Perry on the phone and ask him how he feels about the internet saying his spitball is tantamount to Barry Bonds's abuse of federally banned drugs, Pete Rose's betting on his own games, or Ty Cobb's virulent racism. I'm starting to feel bad for the guy! It's like Loogodude and "you say laws should be obeyed AND YET YOU SPEED ON THE EXPRESSWAY"

[Kramerica Industries]

There's also the inconsistency of the media using the home run race of 1998 to help resurrect MLB from the strike, and those same people are now impugning those involved in the resurrection.

Talk about hypocritical.

[pmoehrin]

The only argument I have against Rose being in is that he had it in his power to amend his crimes simply by apologizing for the most serous of crimes, because if if somebody in the position of Rose has an incentive not to try his hardest, you've effectively reduced baseball to professional wrestling. But even in the face of those crimes he still had the power to amend them and he chose to deny it because he was Pete Rose and he was above everyone else. I think that does need to be taken into consideration when discussing whether or not he should be in the Hall. I don't have an answer for what's right to do. I just simply say I understand both sides. Rose I think should be treated as a special case because of how he handled the situation.

I just finished re-reading Fay Vincent's book, "The Last Commissioner," which devotes the better end of a full chapter to the Pete Rose incident. Essentially there was no way in the world Rose was going to avoid being banned for life - once he had the evidence, Bart Giamatti would've done whatever was needed to accomplish that, even had Rose "fessed up" from the outset. Two subsequent actions sealed Rose's fate: Giamatti died and Rose, rather than do a mea culpa and make a concerted effort to straighten out his life, instead became a convicted felon who for 15 years denied his guilt... until a book deal made it financially beneficial to cop to an admission.

He would have been banned, but it was basically an unwritten agreement that he would have been able to apply for reinstatement within a year had he admitted to it and not made the MLB get on the phone with John Dowd to investiage it and probably would have been gratned the reinstatement. That was basically the deal he was offered when the investiagion first started and instead he chose to fight it.

Its like anything else in life, if you own up to your crimes right away you'll probably get off with a slap on the wrist or a more lenient sentence and if you don't your going to have the book thrown at you if your found guilty.

[Gothamite]

True, he probably could have avoided most of the punishment had he come clean when caught.

But Pete Rose is a scumbag who refuses to this day to take any responsibility for his actions, so perhaps we shouldn't in retrospect be surprised that he made the choices he did.

There's also the inconsistency of the media using the home run race of 1998 to help resurrect MLB from the strike, and those same people are now impugning those involved in the resurrection.

Talk about hypocritical.

Only if you have specific examples of the same writers knowing but ignoring then and criticizing now.

[rams80]

They may not have "known" enough to prove in a criminal court, but steroid use was very much acknowledged to be the unspoken elephant in the room back in 1998. One that the self-appointed guardians of the sport were very hesitant to explore or confront at the time. Willful ignorance is just as damning as covering up.

[Gothamite]

Suspicions are not proof.

And when proof was offered, their opinions changed.

That's not "hypocrisy", that's responsibility.