Baseball History Comes Alive Now Ranked #2 by Feedspot Among All Internet Baseball History Websites and Blogs!
Guest Submissions from Our Readers Always Welcome!
NEW HALL OF FAME POLL QUESTION
The recent Hall of Fame voting for the 2021 Class resulted in no player reaching the 75 percent of the vote needed for induction. Interestingly enough, the three players with the highest percentage of votes were all controversial. Curt Schilling (71.1), Barry Bonds (61.8) and Roger Clemens (61.5) have been cited for
Bob Gibson arrives for an induction ceremony at the Hall of Fame
inflammatory political statements (Schilling) and being poster boys for the so-called Steroid Era (Bonds and Clemens) All three have been on the ballot for nine seasons and have just one more year with the baseball writers before dropping off and having to wait for the several committees that now vote on older players.
(In the featured photo above, we see Jackie Robinson and Bob Feller at their induction ceremony in 1962).
Our poll question is this:
How do you feel about former steroid users or suspected users being voted into the Hall of Fame? And is the character clause a good reason to keep someone out?
In addition if you’d like to comment further on the Hall-of-Famer worthiness of any of the following players, please do so in the comments section.
Which, if any, of the following controversial players do you feel should be voted into the Hall of Fame?
- Barry Bonds
- Roger Clemens
- Curt Schilling
- Sammy Sosa
- Mark McGwire
- Rafael Palmeiro
- Alex Rodriguez
- David Ortiz
- Robinson Cano
- Pete Rose
Thanks,
Bill and Gary
All these players should be in HoF. I say this even though I dislike most of them.
All of them. Even Palmiero who probably has the weakest on the field case.
Hi Bill, Gary:
Congratulations on your very pertinent and provocative questions. Here’s hoping you’re able to collect many ballots, along with useful explanations for them.
I’m in the camp that believes a player’s use of prohibited pharmaceuticals should be a bar to his induction. Major-League Baseball must not allow, facilitate or reward rule-breaking; if it does, we may as well ash-can the rules themselves. Anybody on the ballot, now or later, who sought and secured an unwarranted edge on his competitors through the use of substances deemed off-limits should not be considered eligible for enshrinement to begin with. He should not be asking voters to evaluate a career that was managed, manipulated, contorted and ultimately disfigured by a chem lab. Most of the guys on your list here should be writing letters of acknowledgment and regret to school-kids rather than acceptance speeches for delivery to Cooperstown.
While I also think that “character” should forever be retained as a legitimate criterion for the voters’ consideration in determining a candidate’s Hall-worthiness, this long-cherished sport should take care not to rely upon or refer to political considerations in deciding which sorts of character are laudable and which not. (The fact that Curt Schilling appears to be an outspoken conservative, willing to vocalize extreme views with which middle-range-to-left-leaning observers may not much agree, has no legitimate place in determining whether he belongs in Cooperstown.) We should be very conscious of and concerned about such slippery slopes, particularly in an age when political zealots are obliterating our nation’s history books and tearing down iconic statues, including those of Lincoln, Jefferson and Washington, all in the name of “equity,” “inclusiveness,” or a more-perfect arrangement of one’s pigment, genitalia, religious persuasion or political point of view.
Best wishes,
Michael
Hey Michael. I know what you’re saying. Seems it’s a matter of let them all in or keep them all out. I can almost understand a marginal player resorting to PEDs to try to make the Show or stay there more than a star player resorting to them to go from excellent to great, or to elongate his career to break records or make another ton of money. But they are banned and illegal substances, so it’s hard to make the case for anyone. Know what you’re saying about the character clause, too. We’re living in such an era of political correctness and sensitivity that it’s hard to define character. Should a player be kept out for domestic violence or homophobic remarks, or even for a series of DUI’s? If someone has radical political beliefs and is voted in, he shouldn’t be allowed to use his acceptance speech for political rhetoric. The voting is so inconsistent and arbitrary as it is, that this only makes things tougher. But there are now so many players on the ballot or approaching the ballot that have a sullied past with PEDs that the Hall should come up with a solid plan. With Bonds and Clemens the argument for induction is that they were Hall of Fame players before they began using. But does that fact make their use of PEDs even worse? All tough questions with no real answers. So it will be up to the writers who have a vote. Maybe allow the former players to vote instead. Some feel that as the voters become younger, they won’t have the same reaction to the Steroid Era that the voters who lived through it have, and then these guys will get in. Guess we’ll have to wait and see, a good reason to hang around for more years. Thanks again for your thoughts.
Bill
Thanks for the pertinent question. I have always said Pete Rose should be in, if you get more hits than any player in history and cannot get in the HOF, then the HOF is not legitimate. I am most outraged about the case of Curt Schilling, by any measure his performance between the lines merits the HOF. I have never had high regard for a large number of sports writers. They are full of themselves and want all the players and fans to kiss their rears. I have a long standing feud with A HOF voter named Marcos Breton, he still votes and is a political writer now for the Sacramento Bee. He gloats about Schilling will never get his vote in the paper. If I was not 76 and it was legal, I would drive to Sacramento from my retirement in Arizona and straighten him out the old fashioned way. Most of the players on your list should be in the HOF. Bonds and Clemens were the very best Hitter and Pitcher of their era without a doubt. I refuse to ever go to the HOF or recognize it’s status as it presently exists. Of course the case of Gil Hodges not being recognized is an outrage. My suggestion is that the voting be removed from those writers currently voting and and placed in the hands of former players and people of the caliber of you people who produce this site. Bill Gutman is the best writer of baseball lore that I ever knew of.
Hello Dennis, and thanks for the nice compliment. I agree with you that the voting should be taken from the writers and be given to former players. My guess is, from what I’ve heard and read over the years, that former clean players would not vote for guys who tested positive for PEDs or were highly suspected of using. I know what you mean about some sportswriters. Recently had a rather contentious exchange of emails with a well known New York sports columnist who kept insisting the the Giants cheated with their sign stealing in 1951 and it tainted the Bobby Thomson home run. I wrote a book with Bobby and spoke to many players from that era and was told that many teams back then were doing similar things to steal signs. And none of it was illegal then. The players felt it was no big deal. Yet in today’s cancel culture people seem to enjoy applying today’s standards to things that happened 70 or 80 years ago when it was a different world and holding people responsible for what would be transgressions today, but weren’t then. The Hall of Fame voting has been kind of arbitrary for years. Gil should obviously be in. I always like to point to Catfish Hunter and Luis Tiant. Their career numbers are eerily close, almost identical. And each was a big game pitcher. Hunter was a no brainer inductee and Tiant has never come close. Hard to explain and I’m sure the debate will rage on for years. Let’s see what happens next year when Bonds, Clemens and Schilling are on the writer’s ballot for the final team. And thanks for expressing your thoughts in a most articulate way.
Bill
I agree with Michael on Curt Schilling. Rather agree with Jay in that I don’t like most of the players on the list presented. Roger Clemens was a dangerous, nasty character on the mound and could have crippled Mike Piazza. Just can’t vote with fervor on any of them.
Feel strongly that Pete Rose should be represented in Cooperstown, with an asterisk concerning his wagering indiscretions. He personified all out hustle over a long, distinguished career. And it’s likely his hit total will never be broken.
Reggie Jackson said there are Hall of Famers and the real Hall of Famers. We can agree mostly on who the Titans of the sport are, but go into endless debate on many of the others. How about two levels in the Hall, with an honorable mention?
Bill Mazeroski does not belong, period. But Reese, Rizzuto, Kiner, Mattingly, Hernandez could be second level. Bobby Thomson-Honorable Mention- for hitting two playoff game winning homers, including The Shot Heard ‘Round the World.
Just a thought, you guys figure out the details!
Hey Bill. Not a bad idea about having two levels at the Hall. There’s been debate for years whether the Hall should just be for the elite or also for the very good. Today I have to wonder if having more inductees is good for business, for generating money with the huge Hall weekend and all the merchandise they can sell. Unfortunately, don’t thing the Hall will ever be divided into two or more levels. Rose, of course, was banned for betting on the team he was managing. Yet today, the once taboo edict against gambling is all but gone and people are being encourage to bet, bet, bet wherever you turn and MLB is getting the piece of the pie, as well as the other sports leagues. Yet Rose remains a pariah. Vote him in and be done with it. There are obviously players who don’t belong and those who should be in, but aren’t. And should the writers continue to vote or should the vote be given to former players? Another good question. Reggie Jackson’s assertion is correct. It’s an endless debate that is destined to continue, maybe forever.
Bill
Gil Hodges in that second tier, yes.
Had the pleasure of interviewing him in 1968. Perfect gentleman and very patient with a young, too eager broadcaster.
By all accounts, Gil was a wonderful guy.
At least Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, and Pete Rose should be HOF now. Many others also, because any notable player over a period of time should be found there.
Thanks for expressing your opinion, Thomas. I’m sure there are others who agree with you.
Here are my thoughts:
Barry Bonds – I didn’t ever like him personally. However, I think he was Hall worthy before the PEDs so I’m okay with him getting in.
Roger Clemens – I have no idea when he started using PEDs. However, I assume it was later in his career so his earlier work was Hall worthy. Again, I’m okay with him getting in.
Curt Schilling – I’m a Phillies fan. However, his statements showing approval for the insurrection at the capitol has tainted my view. He was never a slam dunk but I’m okay leaving him out.
Sammy Sosa – Sammy was never a Hall consideration till he started on PEDs. I do not put him in.
Mark McGwire – This is my most difficult decision. I loved McGwire during his PED years. He was such a wonderful person. He also “appeared” to use steriods to recover from injury rather than for added strength. I’m probably biasly blind there. I’d like to see him in the Hall.
Rafael Palmeiro – I never considered him for the Hall. I was shocked when I saw the numbers he put up. I probably wouldn’t have voted for him though his numbers are Hall worthy.
Alex Rodriguez – This is another tough one. He certainly had the talent but it appears that he used PEDs for an extended period. We don’t know if he would have been Hall worthy without them. I’m probably not voting for him.
David Ortiz – I’m not a fan of the DH. I’d rather see a well rounded player get in. However, there are characteristics of Ortiz that are similar to Stargell so I’m inclined to say “Yes” to Ortiz.
Robinson Cano – No. He doesn’t get in.
Pete Rose – No!! Never! Until the rules are changed there can never be a chance for Pete. Besides the rule, this is where the “Character Clause” truly comes in. I think he’s an awful person. It was often said that because of his hustle kids should look up to him. Not in my book. In my opinion, his stats are borderline Hall worthy. He shouldn’t have been playing his last 3 years after he was released by the Phillies. As player-manager he hurt his team by playing himself. Subtract those 266 hits and he falls well behind Ty Cobb.
Thanks for taking the time to give your opinion on all the guys, Bob. The Hall has always elicited a passionate debate, now more than ever with the PEDs and the character clause coming front and center. There’s probably no one answer unless the HOF decided to go one way or another. Either ignore the PEDs and vote on the players’ achievements or simply say anyone caught using illegal supplements can never be in. But I don’t think they’ll do that, so the debate will continue. Once again, thanks for letting us hear from you in such detail. We appreciate it.
I believe Gil Hodges belongs in the HOF. Meet him quite a few times when I was a kid growing up in NYC. He always took his time to sign anything for the kids and speak with them when he was on the field or waiting after the gams.
One true gentleman.
We should have more of our ballplayers today with his manners
Gil, by all accounts, was a wonderful human being as well as a fine ballplayer and outstanding manager. I, too, feel he should be in the Hall. Great that you met him several times years ago and thanks for sharing it with us, Ron.
Having had my turn at bat already on this subject I’ll just add a quick post-script with regard to the debate among fans and writers over Curt Schilling:
May the Good Lord help us if we do not take care to protect, defend, and otherwise champion the First Amendment!
Kindest regards,
Michael
P.P.S: Oh, and praying to see the day The Great Gil is enshrined is about the only thing keeping me alive at this late point.
Keedy always inspires me to jump back into the fray. Schilling’s political affiliations aside, not sure he’s Hall anyway. Though his 11-2 post season record with a 2.23 ERA is outstanding.
Bob Rambo makes some other good points. I’ll toss in my two cents.
As Bill Gutman pointed out in a recent post, if Palmeiro’s numbers were not tainted by drug allegations, he’s got to be voted in for sure.
Yes, Bonds was Hall before steroids, so I vote yes begrudgingly.
Clemens same thing, but I couldn’t give him thumbs up. Roger, by many accounts, was a mean spirited competitor. If Mike Piazza were not wearing a batting helmet, he wouldn’t have walked off the field that day. Clemens was tired of the Mets’ catcher taking him deep and made sure the message was sent. Not saying he threw at his head, but he left no room for error.
Anybody named Rambo, I don’t want to tangle with–but how can you say Pete Rose’s stats are borderline? Led the league in runs scored 4 times; doubles 5 times; hits 7 times; OBP 1 time. Plus, 3 batting titles. Not to mention his astounding all time hit total. And a .303 lifetime batting average, over 24 years. Just to stay healthy enough to play that long is mind boggling. Oh, and a 67 game post season BA of .321, with an OPS of .828. Both better than his regular season numbers.
You’re right, Rose did not exactly set an altogether noble example. But I do think his all out hustle and commitment to the game was an inspiration to kids watching him play.
You say he stayed too long at the fair. But so did Mickey Mantle. The Mick’s last four years saw him bat a composite .256 and regrettably drop under .300 for his career.
the only ones on that list deserving enshrinement in h.o.f. are schilling and rose
if so many players and voters don’t care about building an illegal body to outperform and shut out those who want to earn honest baseball career living, than pete and joe jackson are in
schilling’s views aren’t that outrageous, and shouldn’t be keeping him out
all the p.e.d. or steroid users, even if great before using, are forever barred … they disgraced the game and its sacred numbers
ortiz was d.h., not baseball player … generally speaking d.h. and relievers (failed starters) don’t qualify … they are specialists, not baseball players