Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_
Personally, I'd love it if all the voters abstained this time. Maybe it'll finally send a signal to the HoF to change their freaking rules. Put in players based on stats alone. Nothing else involved in the decision. If you want to put some comment about morality on their plaque, so be it. But let the performance on the field be the final and only determining factor in induction. Yes, that also means put Rose in there too. Ineligible by MLB or not, the Hall of Fame is a joke without these truly FAMEous players. (yes, I know it's spelled wrong) :O)
Sir Charles, I partially agree and am glad you wrote your post. I was about to write something similar.
I support Fay's move. How on earth do a bunch sportswriters know (a) whether somebody used steroids (b) what impact that possible use of steroids had on his baseball performance or (c) whether the player would have been a Hall of Famer without steroids?
Asking sportswriters to consider a player's supposed, usually unproven, steroid use is ridiculous. Further, this has become a morality issue as much as a baseball issue. The whole voting process has become impossible.
The Hall of Fame needs to set out clear guidelines on this. Charles says that steroid use should be irrelevant. I don't agree, but the important thing is that the Hall should make clear what the guidelines are.
A clear statement from the Hall as to the way in which steroid use should be considered is necessary. If the Hall has already done this, I'm unaware of it.