Re: Do You take the Hall of Fame Serious?
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.
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.
Last edited by RedsManRick; 12-07-2011 at 03:24 PM.