Remember 1969: Response essay to Reese's Pieces "What makes a Hall of Famer?"

Some additional ramblings on the Hall of Fame and other topics   

Note:  I started this as a comment to Reese's piece of Wednesday Jan 26, but it got too big for a comment only, so . . my opinions at this point, just following the 2022 election.  

I guess at this point I have come to ask the question "Why is it called the Hall of FAME and not the Hall of SAINTS AND GREAT PEOPLE"?  

 While I don't condone the steroids, ball players have been trying to get an edge in their competition for 150 years or so.   Who knows who did what?   We are all pretty sure Gaylord Perry threw the spitter after it was banned in 1920.   There are a lot of other cheats and shady characters in the Hall of Fame now, including some suspected or even known drug users. 

 I think we have to realize, like the generations ahead of us will certainly recognize, that we did in fact have a 'steroid era', and many people played baseball through that era.   Of all the players, many played it fair, many did not.   We will never know who doped up and who did not and it is not fair to surmise.    If they got caught and penalized with a suspension and came back, they missed a chance to pad their stats during their suspension time.   Oh well. 

 I blame baseball and Bud Selig for not nipping it in the bud and getting it right with testing up front.  They turned the other cheek when McGwire and Sosa were hammering the bombs in a great piece of entertainment.  They generated a ton of interest in the game at that time.  But shame on them for letting it get as far as it did.    Yes, the stars did it wrong, but the drugs were so rampant by the late 90's and MLB did not get it right early enough. 

 While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I think we need to recognize the greats.   The list of players on the late to the game Mitchell report lists a few stars and a LOT of players that did very little in the game.   Steroids did not create Hall of Famers out of players that were not on the way anyway.    I have become a proponent of the idea that ‘they still had to take the field every day for 20 years, they still had to hit the ball, or throw the ball accurately.  Steroids may have allowed them to hit it a bit further or throw it a bit faster, but they still had to execute.  

 As far as other transgressions that could be discussed, I think domestic violence is the most serious.   I don’t believe we have had that crime hanging over a Hall of Fame candidacy, and I am grateful for that.   I do believe that baseball is taking that seriously and doing the right things when a player has been accused or is subject to allegations.   I seriously hope Trever Bauer is never allowed back into the game.  

 Lastly, as someone commented on Reese’s piece, it seems like Pete Rose’s betting is little stuff now.   I semi-agree.  I personally do not care to gamble on anything more than an occasional nickel-dime poker game among friends, and am a bit worried on the increasingly expanding legal gambling going on with not just baseball but many of the major sports including golf and tennis.    The amount of money involved now is concerning to me as a societal problem.    Baseball and baseball players should have learned their lessons from 1919 and Pete Rose, but money is a big talker and could lead to thrown games again in the future.   Again, it is incumbent on baseball to police the sport and head off problems early by suspending players.    

 With that all said, back to the Hall of Fame discussion.    I full believe Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame for his play on the field long before his gambling was an issue.   

 Perhaps the Hall should create a new wing with the theme that “We were pretty good ball players, but not all of us were great people” and show the world that there are many known cheaters, racists, drunks, and yes, even bettors (more than just Pete).    Give them a wall of shame behind their plaque of Fame.  

 Lastly.  perhaps it is time to change the way Hall of Fame voting is done.   Apparently it is not good enough to trust the baseball writers to get it right as there is a “Today’s Era” committee that will be voting on players that just fell off the 10 year ballot in the next year?  Why?  I think because the writers just don’t get it right enough.      

 I think the players should be included.   Just today I saw a comment from someone that maybe the players should become eligible to vote on the Hall of Fame candidates when they attain 10 years of MLB time.   Not a bad idea.    Perhaps a mix of baseball writers, players, and managers/general managers would be a better solution.    Hell, add fans into the mix if it could be done in a way that each person gets one and only one vote and it doesn’t start to resemble All-Star game voting.    Make three components – writers, fans, and players and figure some reasonable weighting.    More votes make a better result.