We are all biased, but media members talk about their bias, which makes it more obvious and more difficult to stomach if you are just a fan looking to separate "politics" from sports.
No. I mean by playing. But I would want my HOF to be only the absolute elite in history. Not just the really, really good players.
Agreed. A lot of sportswriters seem to be the kid who loved sports with all their heart but wasn't blessed with the physical ability to actually play it. So they carried that resentment into adulthood. They loved sports so much they wanted to be connected to sports somehow. So they did (in their mind) the next best thing. They became a sportswriter and covered the game. As the years pass and they are around the game a lot they become very self righteous and get a very inflated view of their importance within the sport. So anytime a player (especially a star player) doesn't kiss their rear ends that old childhood resentment resurfaces and they lash out in ways like you've mentioned.
What would be your threshold for elite? Because TO is arguably a top 5 WR all time.
I've always struggled with the idea of if a guy is a first ballot HOFer or not. Either the player is worthy of the HOF or he/she isn't. Why does it matter how many times the player has been on the ballot?
Its supposed to be because not all HOF classes are created equal. There are times where a lot of HOF players become eligible the same year as one another and there are only so many HOF spots per year. Maybe that is what needs to change? Stop limiting the number of HOF spots per year and just vote people in immediately if they deserve it? I don't know.
Just think if a player was eligible to be on the ballot just one time. Cris Carter would have been left out. According to this article it took him six times to get voted in.
Had thought of this, and I could buy it if players weren't jumped by newcomers.
Not to me - There is too much that we don't know about what really went down, and I don't totally trust the Dowd Report or Dowd himself, but we do know, for a fact, that Rose bet on the Reds while he was a player and a coach. What we also know is that MLB has something on him that scared the heck out of him, because he accepted the punishment so long as MLB didn't formally publish their findings about his gambling.
And MLB isn't undermining the legitimacy of the sport by recognizing players who achieved historical milestones via steroids? I'm okay with them keeping Rose out of the HOF with the "undermining the integrity of the game" reason. But to not also put that same label on players who put substances in their bodies (that were banned) that assisted in them breaking holy grail milestones of the game is hypocritical. Gambling on the sport didn't assist Rose in getting hits on the field. He earned those legitimately. What certain players put in their bodies directly contributed to their success on the field and the gross padding of their stats.
Exactly! I will not argue the point that Rose gambled as a manager. But he wouldn't really be considered as HOF as a manger. But as a player, he was one of the best I ever watched. He committed a cardinal sin, with that I agree. But to say you have a HOF which recognizes the best players while also ignoring one of the very best is laughable to me. I am sorry, but I like Rose, and think his playing days deserve HOF recognition, and not after he dies either.
Let's be honest - every sport has this. Only MLB pretends to care. MLB should just stop pretending to care.
PED's are not all created equal. "PED" is a generic term used. But all substances that fall into this broad term are nowhere near equal. The type PED Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro etc were using changed their body chemistry in such a way that it gave them much more than simply a "boost of energy". It added years to their prime in a time of their career (especially McGwires and Clemens) where their bodies were starting to breakdown and absent these drugs, would have retired years earlier. They probably would have still made the HOF. But they wouldn't have climbed the statistical milestone charts the way they did, passing players who did it without this help. Could you imagine adding another five to six years to Hank Aaron's prime?
It is their body. Why are we legislating what a person can consume to improve their performance at work?
That's a question you have to ask MLB and other sports. That's another discussion. Until they decide otherwise, the rules stating anabolic steroids and other PED's being illegal applies and offenders should be dealt with in the same manner as Rose was regarding the hall of fame. Now if MLB and other sports want to decide otherwise, then fine. I may not agree with it, but that's my problem.
