With all of this talk of steroids in baseball over the past couple of years I feel it is time we consider debating the topic of the Hall of Fame. Do you consider it to be a fraternity of players that are rewarded based on performance or based on a combination of ethics and performance? When time comes to nominate all these players that are involved in the "steroid-era" into the hall of fame, if one of them was to make it in, would Pete Rose finally be inducted into the Hall of Fame? I certainly do not support his gambling and what he did to the game but let's face the facts. His decisions off the field certainly did not affect the outcome of his career as a player while the players of the last couple of years have let their off the field actions guide how "well" their careers have turned out. I may not have enough information but I just find it an interesting topic...
Any thoughts?
Posted by: SubliminalX
Well, if ethics was that important, Ty Cobb wouldn't be in the hall. He was a bigoted, disrespectful human being in general. He jumped into stands once and beat up a handicapped person, stabbed a black hotel worker, and yelled racial epithets to any player of recent immigrant background (German, Italian, etc). He was the "gangsta" athlete of his era. In today's game, Cobb would be beaned almost every game to the point he'd couldn't play anymore. Baseball is known to police itself on the field, makes me wonder why Cobb wasn't taught a lesson by opposing players too often.
But today's standards are different. The game of baseball is so intertwined with the identity and culture of the United States, that each inductee is now judged on how they represent themselves as human beings, not just a player between the lines. To give a player a pass into the Hall in spite of his poor character, would be a bad reflection on the country's ideals.
With that said, Pete Rose's gambling directly damaged the integrity of sport. We never know if he gambled on games while as a player. That doubt is why Rose will probably never get inducted.
The steroid issue is a little more in the gray area. Steroids don't directly "fix" the outcome of the sport, at least not in the same way as tanking a game, scuffing the ball, or sanding down the side of a bat. Nor were they against the rules until recently. When pitchers were gumming up the ball with spit back in the day, they weren't called "cheaters." It wasn't against the rules at the time. Why should roid users be held to a different standard?
There is no direct evidence that McGwire, Sosa, or Bonds did roids. But Palmeiro was caught during a time when it was against the rules, therefore his eligibility is in serious jeopardy. But I think all others should get a fair shot.