Do You take the Hall of Fame Serious?

Just curious as it seems many seem to think Ron Santo was way overdue for induction. Then of course we have the "Pete Rose Saga" (he'll sell ya the story I am sure... wait, he already has lol).

Do you take the Hall serious? Or is it or has it become just some place that is not to be taken too serious in your opinion?

Personally I used to take a lot of stock in the Hall and started not caring for the place about 10 years ago. Not sure why... baseball writers, veteran's committee, my age, etc, etc. I just don't care these days.

Don't get me wrong... I'd visit the place in a heartbeat. Baseball is in the blood.

I take it seriously. It is the voters that seem not to.

I think the HOF plays a significant role in crafting the games' narrative. How many players from 40, 60, 80, 100 years ago who are not in the hall do we still talk about? Shoeless Joe Jackson and Roger Maris are among the exceptions that prove the rule. If nothing else, the process of being elected gives us a chance to reflect on the careers and times of players past.

And that's why I'm a "big hall" type of person. I'd rather have guys get put in to the games historical keystone institution who maybe were not all that great than to leave out players who by merit should have been included. So give me Jim Rice and Jack Morris if you must, but don't you dare leave out Bert Blyleven and Tim Raines.

As for Pete (and others who broke the rules in some way), put him in the hall, but don't let him speak or make appearances. What happened on the field happened and above all else, the hall should be about recognizing what happened on the field of play. While it's a great honor to the player to be elected and I can understand people wanting to deny the player said honor, it is the fans are robbed most when otherwise deserving players are omitted. I would take it more seriously than I do if they would simply put in deserving players (based on performance) and simply ensure that the players' plaque adequately contextualizes their place in the games' history.

I do not take the veteran selection committee seriously (or whatever they call themselves). They seem spiteful, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reds1869

I take it seriously. It is the voters that seem not to.

---

:thumbup:

I was ready to give the thread "three strikes & you're out" for lack of adverbs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

I think the HOF plays a significant role in crafting the games' narrative. How many players from 40, 60, 80, 100 years ago who are not in the hall do we still talk about? Shoeless Joe Jackson and Roger Maris are among the exceptions that prove the rule. If nothing else, the process of being elected gives us a chance to reflect on the careers and times of players past.

And that's why I'm a "big hall" type of person. I'd rather have guys get put in to the games historical keystone institution who maybe were not all that great than to leave out players who by merit should have been included. So give me Jim Rice and Jack Morris if you must, but don't you dare leave out Bert Blyleven and Tim Raines.

As for Pete (and others who broke the rules in some way), put him in the hall, but don't let him speak or make appearances. What happened on the field happened and above all else, the hall should be about recognizing what happened on the field of play. While it's a great honor to the player to be elected and I can understand people wanting to deny the player said honor, it is the fans are robbed most when otherwise deserving players are omitted. I would take it more seriously than I do if they would simply put in deserving players (based on performance) and simply ensure that the players' plaque adequately contextualizes their place in the games' history.

---

I'm inclined to agree here. For the casual fan, the Hall of Fame is probably irrelevant, but for those who are more than that, it's great to have that narrative, to have that history there.

Whether Pete Rose is in matters not one bit to me. Personally, I'd have no problem with him being there, same with Joe Jackson. Frankly, I'd be inclined to let in PED users too since I basically believe it's ownership who turned the blind eye to players beefing up & saving the game from it's own idiocy. And every generation has had one thing or another that impacted who was elite and who wasn't.

I don't take it near as seriously as I once did.

The people that vote make me laugh sometimes. They seem to feel that they are bigger than the Hall at times. I don't like the process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redsmetz

I was ready to give the thread "three strikes & you're out" for lack of adverbs.

---

Sorry! Too much insulin and/or not enough carbs at lunch today. Not funny but you'd laugh at how long it took me to even get the thread posted despite being semi-short. It did cause me to pause and decide something wasn't right with the head and check the blood. I must admit it does get a low-grade for grammar. lol

I think they ought to do a better job of including guys right away who deserve to be in, no sense making certain guys who are no doubters wait 2-3 years or more. Other than that I think they basically eventually get it right. Though If I were them i'd include Joe Jackson and not so much Pete.

The fact that people still talk about whether or not Joe Jackson should be in the HOF tells me how little we need the HOF to tell us who is and who isn't worth remembering.

Cooperstown yes, Reds HOF no.

I am probally a freak compared to most in that around age 10 I was pretty darn knowledgeable on Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Lou Gehrig and alot of other players and teams from the 1920-1970 era. In fact to this day I probally know more about those players and the times they played in than I know about current day baseball. So yes, Cooperstown is VERY important to me.

Having said that I would love to see the voting changed. I am very much a status quo kinda guy but the voting for the most part is silly. Keeping Bert Blyleven out for as long as they did although at the time of his retirement when only 2 other pitchers in MLB history had more strikeouts than him was utterly nuts. I am not a huge Ron Santo supporter but I have no problem with him going in. There are many, many worse players in than him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

I think the HOF plays a significant role in crafting the games' narrative. How many players from 40, 60, 80, 100 years ago who are not in the hall do we still talk about? Shoeless Joe Jackson and Roger Maris are among the exceptions that prove the rule. If nothing else, the process of being elected gives us a chance to reflect on the careers and times of players past.

And that's why I'm a "big hall" type of person. I'd rather have guys get put in to the games historical keystone institution who maybe were not all that great than to leave out players who by merit should have been included. So give me Jim Rice and Jack Morris if you must, but don't you dare leave out Bert Blyleven and Tim Raines.

As for Pete (and others who broke the rules in some way), put him in the hall, but don't let him speak or make appearances. What happened on the field happened and above all else, the hall should be about recognizing what happened on the field of play. While it's a great honor to the player to be elected and I can understand people wanting to deny the player said honor, it is the fans are robbed most when otherwise deserving players are omitted. I would take it more seriously than I do if they would simply put in deserving players (based on performance) and simply ensure that the players' plaque adequately contextualizes their place in the games' history.

---

I agree with this. The Hall of Fame is for the fans. Leaving out some of the most famous and popular players of all time is a disservice to the fans and fails one of the HOF's goals of educating the public.