Since we don’t have a regular baseball roundtable out of season (Yet) that doesn’t mean the National Past-its-time doesn’t hit the news, electing NO ONE to the Hall of Fame, even though if you took 9 players of the “also receiving votes” category, I think that whips every team in Baseball, and could stay with many all-decade teams. So I threw up the Lazy-boy beacon, and 4 men arrived to talk HALL. Rich Stowe, Dan Vachalek, Stephan Hall (no relation) and Archie Williams. So sit back, and enjoy.
— And yeah Rich. Thats a challenge, see how good a team you can make. Ain’t like you are doing anything.
1. Who got shafted the most by the hall of fame voters?
Dan: Mike Piazza. He was the greatest hitting catcher ever yet only got 57% of the vote. He should’ve gotten a lot more than that and should’ve made the Hall of Fame. To me, it’s a little ridiculous that he didn’t get in at all.
Rich: So many players got shafted – not the ones with admitted/confirmed positive tests or too much evidence like Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, McGwire or Palmeiro but players like Biggio, Bagwell, McGriff, Trammel, Piazza and Murphy. The supposed clean players get lumped in and judged just as guily as the actually guilty ones.
Stephan: I may take some heat for this but Im going to say Roger Clemens. Clemens definately has the numbers to get in but is skewed because of the steroid scandal. The reason I would give Clemens the nod is because he is the only one who wanted his day in court and wanted to clear his name. He WAS aquitted in court of charges stemming from lying to Congress, and never actually failed a drug test. You cannot automatically assume someone is guilty. Innocent until proven guilty and Clemens was found Not Guilty.
Archie: Barry Bonds. No One liked him. He was arrogant. He was petty. He was a Son of a Bitch most of the time, but then so was Ty Cobb. But Barry Bonds has the most Bold ink of any player in my life time. He was without a doubt the purest hitter I ever watched play. It’s a shame he could not even get 40% of the vote. And by the way, NEVER failed a drug test.
2. Should the character clause be dropped?
Dan: Yes. If you look at all the players who are already in who have had a questionable character, I don’t get why it matters, it wasn’t what they did on the field and that’s what should be the basis for getting into the Hall as a player: what you accomplished in your career.
Rich: No, the character clause should not be dropped, however, it needs to be applied evenly to all players. A player like Murphy who has nothing but great character doesn’t get bonus points for it, but other players seem to lose votes for character issues.
Stephan: Yes. Is Ty Cobb a Hall of Famer? Yes he is. He was one of the dirtiest player in his time. Alomar got in after spitting on an umpire. To me there really is no clear character clause. It is rarely enforced.
Archie: When you have Cap Anson and Ty Cobb in the HOF, who said there was a character clause to begin with.
3. Has the veterans committee lessened the status of being a HOF
Dan: No, I don’t think so
Rich: No, the Veterans Commitee hasn’t lessened the status of being a Hall of Famer. If anything, the Veterans’ Committee has tougher standards than the writers (and why the rules regarding the veterans committee has been changed many times over the last decade or so).
Stephan: Lessened? No way. They have made it much more difficult to be a Hall of Famer. I think the problem is that there are far too many writers voting and there should be a select committee like the Legends committee to select the right men to be in the Hall of Fame.
Archie: By trying to make the Hall a “holier than thou” club, they have managed to make it the Hall of Very Good.
4. Is the Hall of Fame still relevant to anyone but memorabilia collectors?
Dan: I still think it is, but with how the voting is, it’s starting to lose it’s stature. There shouldn’t be 500+ voters. Anybody sending a blank ballot should lose their voting privilege. There needs to be people who write strictly about baseball. Some of these writers have no place in their voting. One writer who I’ve noticed does a great job with voting year in and year out is Tom Haudricourt, the JS Milwaukee Brewers’ writer. Another thing I’d make a requirement for everyone who votes is that they have to share who they voted for and give reasoning for why they voted for who they did.
Rich: The Hall of Fame is still relevant, however, that can quickly be lost if no player from 1988 through 2004 is able to get in. It is a museum afterall that already includes cheaters (Gaylord Perry), admitted amphetamine users (Mike Schmidt) and some of the biggest racists this country has ever seen (Cap Anson, Tom Yawkey and Kenesaw Mountain Landis).
Stephan: I am a baseball fan, and love the Hall of Fame. It is very relevant. I honestly dont think that it is relevant to some of the players that are being mentioned for the Hall of Fame. Does Barry Bonds care? I don’t know, but I bet he was more worried about making his millions than being in the Hall. But yes it is still relevant to most fans of baseball.
Archie: Not really, I say we the fans boycott Cooperstown altogether until they figure out a way to have ALL the greatest in there.
Tiny URL for this post: