Who Gets Into The Hall

I’m posting my Hall of Fame Ballot before the official results are announced on Wednesday so everyone can tell me how wrong I am.

My View Of The Hall of Fame

I see the Hall of Fame as two separate but linked things; a museum and a list of players worthy of individual membership to an elite club. I say that now because it affects how I mark my meaningless ballot.

As the official museum baseball all records are kept there, all happenings positive and negative are noted and part of the record for all to see; Shoeless Joe is part of the museum as is Morgana and Disco Demolition night at Comiskey Park. Worthy accomplishments of every player to take the field are included no matter who he was or what his part was in the game.

Inductees attached to the museum are the face of Major League Baseball’s History to the world.  The Baseball Writers Association of America was given the privilege of deciding who becomes an inductee because in the beginning they were the only ones who saw the players on a day-to-day basis and were able to make an objective judgment. How objective their judgment was and is of course is a constant matter of intense debate.

The Character Clause

"I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member. Groucho Marx"

When it was decided to induct the greats of the game into the Hall, guidelines were established with the idea that cheaters and men of . . . shall we say ill repute . . . should not be granted individual membership. It simply says voters should take into consideration a player’s “integrity, sportsmanship, and character.” Many have suggested that the idea of holding members to such standards should be dropped because it’s subjective rather than objective. I don’t see that happening nor do I want it to happen.

I see the HoF museum as separate from but represented by the inductees. The on field accomplishments of Pete Rose are and must be on view in the museum.  The gambler who bet on his sport while managing and/or playing for a team while making decisions that affected the outcome of games he bet on should not be the face of the museum. Neither he nor those who obviously sought to use illegal means to cheat the game that gave them their paycheck in order to salve their ego should not be honored nationally for being self-centered narcissists even if they now say they regret what they did.

I don’t care that those values mean different things today than they did in 1930’s. I don’t care that the lifestyle of some of the members from the early days would prevent them from being elected in today. Times and society have changed.

Babe Ruth aside, in the early days players were largely non-factors on any national stage that wasn’t directly tied to their game. Today the members are seen as spokesmen for baseball and examples of the finest players the game has to offer.  Character matters to me and if there’s evidence that any player didn’t live up those standards he doesn’t belong and I would not vote for him.