FanNation - The Republic of Sport

thehemogoblin- Gone said 06/17, 09:51 PM
You have a desire to reward those who have corrupted the moral fabric that baseball is built on? You're going to showcase those people who have ruined baseball's credibility to all of those who visit the hallowed halls of Cooperstown?

Instead, I'm going to choose to display something more important to baseball than players who cheated, the people who had an impact off of the field.

My choice: A section in the Hall of Fame for contributors to baseball's greater good. From Buck O'Neil to Curt Flood and Marvin Miller, people who changed and influenced the game need to be included in the Hall, even if they weren't people who's playing career itself would warrant induction.

You can't say that the "Pioneer" designation is sufficient, as only two people have been elected in this role since 1954, and one of those was in the 2006 election's emphasis on the Negro (if that gets censored, that's knee-grow) Leagues.

---------------------------

Lastly, I have a question for you: would these players WANT to be enshrined in baseball's Hall of Shame? If they don't, if they were elected, the Hall of Fame would be sued for defamation of character. How would that look to the casual fan?

thehemogoblin- Gone said 06/17, 10:15 PM
The only reasons those names are known are

a) because we grew up when they were in their primes

b) their infamy for breaking more rules than records


You honestly think baseball was great in the 1990's? There was a strike, there were expansion teams and then threats of contraction, there were horribly outdated baseball stadia, there was cocaine and amphetamines rampant in every locker room, and you think that's great?

Uhh, the defamation of character comes with B. Unless you've got enough evidence to prove these people guilty in a court of law, the Hall of Fame WILL BE SUED for inducting these people into a seperate wing. There's no way this can be done without shaming the Hall of Fame and causing a legal ruckus.

Inducting the modern day pioneers, those players who changed the game for the better instead of changing it for the worse, those people who INSPIRED people to play baseball, those are the people who deserve the recognition. You can't tell me that Curt Flood and his lawsuit against the Reserve Clause didn't impact the game in a positive way, yet there's no mention of it anywhere prominent within the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum.

thehemogoblin- Gone said 06/17, 10:37 PM
If they truly defined the era, then the Hall of Fame voters will vote them in. If they feel that they didn't, then they won't. You can't make them go in a specific place, otherwise the Hall of Fame will be sued. You either have to elect them the hard way or leave them out of the Hall of Fame. None of these players have been banned a la Rose and Jackson, so they're still all eligible for the Hall of Fame.

However, the people that I mention, most of them aren't as eligible or electable on measurable statistics. Their intangible contributions to the game though are so immense that they cannot go without mention, and last I checked, electing Curt Flood won't have negative financial and reputational side effects on Cooperstown.

Also, you're listing people purely on speculation with the exception of McGwire, nobody knows whether or not they'll actually be elected until after their first ballot, and of the players who were listed by you, McGwire's one dimensional play and power-only hitting makes him the least electable candidate. We don't know how the voters are going to respond to Bonds or to Clemens. Remember that Big Mac is the only one to get caught (androstenedione in locker).