Wanted to see Rose get in while he was alive but hope he gets voted in but I’m knot sure how the veteran committee will treat him. I think Shoeless Joe definitely gets in.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (29)
sorted by:
Not much of a sports guy, but just on principle going off the comments here; I don't care too much about personal life - quite a few athletes are shit people, but it's about athleticism, not being a great person - but I think anything directly related to sportsmanship or performance should be delt with harshly. Throwing games should definitely be discouraged. Although I didn't see it mentioned in relation to these players, obviously anyone breaking the rules to get an advantage, like with performance enhancing drugs, can't make the cut.
Problem is they didn’t care about steroids until early 00s. That era in the 80s and 90s is called steroid era and they didn’t test people so technically can’t prove they were on anything. Also the league benefited greatly from more home runs. Rose either never bet on his own team or only bet on his team to win. Against the rules and the players mentioned are dead so their ban is over. I would say they have paid for their “baseball sins”
There is a morals clause for the selection to the Baseball HOF.
No wonder there’s so many beaners
Hehe, I changed it to be correct.
¡Ay Caramba! Have you no morales, essae?
There only exists two possibilities.
We judge ranks and hall of fames as "inspirational heroes" and make constant moral judgements about who gets in, which comes at the expense of any talk about how good they are being useless because you never know how many got cut for being assholes.
The other is we just keep it objective and simple. Whatever metric the ranking uses is sufficient and the only disqualifiers are things that are blatantly against the rules of the time, and if rules change (like with roids) then you make a second list with/without or asterisk it. This gives you always the best, but you have to acknowledge shitty people instead of unpersoning them like our society prefers to do.
I can see an argument for the first option. That's one that is important to teach and sell to kids, because sports stars do have tremendous pull with them across the nation. But that's also a dangerous subjective road that you need extremely trustable authorities to decide.
While option two means a lot of awkward conversations and explanations, but gives us the raw data we care about it.