Sometimes there are debates that rage on with no end in sight, the histrionics sometimes taking on greater prominence than the issues at hand. Whether the topic is political in nature, health-centric or about whether toilet paper roll should have its loose end on the top or bottom, there's no end to the fervor with which proponents of each side will proclaim their righteousness for their viewpoint and their absolute disdain for the other.
It is that same attitude when it comes to the baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown which brings out the virtual hand grenades being hurled from one side of the fence to the other with respect to who belongs and who doesn't belong there for enshrinement with a proper plaque and the corresponding dignity of recognition as one of the best who ever played the game.
Now you could sit here and debate all day whether or not players like Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez and others deserve accolades for what they did with their arms or their bats.
Surely (as Tom Brennan has suggested) taking a discounted percentage of 25 to 30 points off their career totals would still make them mighty difficult to debate when it comes to how good they were at the game of baseball. Still, knowing that they inflated their numbers with drugs specifically forbidden for ballplayers to use suggests just as validly that there should be no place of honor for their baseball performance crimes.
Said Glanville, "There should be a difference between being recognized in the Hall of Fame and being honored by it. ... I don’t see why this distinction cannot be made who took PEDs and also had a record-setting impact. If we want to recognize PED users in the Hall, we can build them an exhibit, or even their own wing. We should acknowledge all of our history, both glorious and ugly. ... I don’t see why they need a plaque."
His idea has merit and would seem to satisfy both sides of the debate aisle. You really can't debate that some of the All Star caliber players during the 1990s and 2000s who embraced the syringe as a performance aid were already outstanding before succumbing to the quick fix. As such they deserve to be applauded for their natural abilities, but at the same time they need to be chastised for what they did in a private wing of the clubhouse.
The concept of an extensive exhibit on the PED history of the game, including a different kind of plaque for those individuals found guilty would reflect the facts about baseball during that era and would simultaneously allow honor to be given to the best of the best whose achievements were tainted.
If you think about it, the players who violated the rules would have a place in the Hall of Fame but not the same brass-plaqued mantle given to the ones who did so honestly. They would get recognition and the game itself would be honest about the way in which baseball was in the headlines for something other than wins and losses.
It wouldn't make the pro-PED fans completely happy, nor would it make the anti-PED fans totally satisfied, but compromises often require a little give on both sides of the equation. Glanville came up with what seems a proper way to record baseball history and cite the top players while separating them from the ones who made it there strictly on their natural abilities.
Since it makes sense, it likely will never happen.
6 comments:
Interesting - if the impacted players, like Clemens and Bonds, agree - I am OK with that. They may not be happy with being in the Hall of Shame wing of the Hall of Fame, though, and choose to stay out under those circumstances
BTW, my 25% or 30% haircut idea would not be formulaic - if a writer wanted to use it in considering a yay or nay vote, they would also have to subjectively consider how much of a career impact PEDs might have had on each player individually.
For instance, with Bonds and Clemens, maybe a writer would think they extended their careers by several years at such a high level, when they might otherwise have been washed up and retired, that a 35% or 40% adjustment would be needed.
Even if you scalped Barry's humongous numbers by 40%, they'd still be Hall-worthy.
On the other hand, a player who admitted he started using them very late in his career because he wasn't recovering quickly from aches and injuries anymore - maybe judgmentally the writer gives that guy a 10% or 15% haircut.
For me, the HOF has lost its shine.
Sort of like I felt when the R&R HOF started voting in acts like Snoop Dog.
That last statement isn't racial. I would say the same for Eminem.
Just ain't rock and roll
The whole PED situation is hard to figure out. Team trainers handing them out to players? Is this the player's fault.
I don't have any desire to go to that NYS town anymore.
Mack, Tom,
As I said before, there was a time when PED were not illegal in baseball. Athletes from different sports such as football, baseball, WWE and others were openly using it.
If I recall correctly, the PED became an issue when a reporter took a picture of a PED bottle that was openly visible on the players locker and it became the focus of his story. That's when the controversy started.
The point that I was making on the other HOF post was that at the time, baseball had no policy for or against PED. Therefore players who were using it at that time should not be tainted as ther was no policy against it from MLB.
If PED made such a difference in a player performance, then I would expect that all or most of the baseball players during that time to have HOF worthy numbers. That's not the case.
How many players even approach Barry Bonds numbers?. Was that all PED? You couldn't throw a freaking fastball past this guy without him putting it over the wall. Pitchers did not even want to pitch to him and would just walk him. That was not just PED, that was unusual talent. Who can you even compare Bonds to these days?. No one.
How do you not recognize Mark McGuire and Sammy Sosa and their battle trying to break the HR record?. Baseball was an after thought during those years and they kept baseball interesting for millions of fans.
HOF these days is a popularity contest as Mack said. Lets ignore that when these players put up those numbers most stadiums used to be a lot bigger and pitchers were a hell of a lot meaner and would knock you down just for being too close to the plate.
Now, I am not saying that PED shouldn't be a factor in who gets into the HOF but rather that if PED made such a difference, there would be a lot of players with HOF numbers and not just a few. There are far more players that even with PED ended up out of baseball due to not being good enough.
And if MLB keeps pushing the betting angle Pete Rose will have a case.
Viper, I hear you - Barry Bonds was incredibly great before he swelled up. It is very hard for me to believe that in his case, PEDs did not add at least 150 HRs to his career totals. He simply exploded at a late age like no one else had ever done.
Yes, he was rare in the magnitude of its impact.
And clearly, lots of guys who took it aren't in the Hall. It did not help them much, if at all.
Clearly Bud Harrelson never used PEDs, LOL, nor did any of the other spinsters in baseball back then.
Willie Stargell likely would have had 600 career homers had he not played in cavernous Forbes Field for several years....Mays lost 100 HRs to the winds of Candlestic. Rockies stars play in light air. So many asymetries.
McGwire had that big rookie year, which most likely was pre-PED, but his forearms looked like something out of a Popeye cartoon. Imagine if Pete Alonso was on PEDs. He wouldn't be playing in the Bronx - but his homers would land in the Bronx.
Tough issue to "rightly divide." How much did cheating amp up a player's performance? Only way to estimate it is case-by-case.
Why reward anyone of these guys for "Tainting the game" I mean i dont agree that people should be blacked balled for not being nice to media or not being the best of guys. but you cheated the game..
so no reward for you. heck I personally want their records stripped like when a NCAA removed a schools titles and strip those wins from the records...
now professional sports is different but No they can stay out.
are there other who cheated in the Hall yes... would I kick them out YES... but thats the past...
draw the line and more forward...
Post a Comment