Yes, the Hall of Fame. Not just baseball, there are hall of fames (HOF) in every big sport, even states, countries and at the Franchise level. The question always remains: what determines if you are worthy to represent a sport, city or other in a HOF?
This is my criteria:
1) Were you a dominant force in your sport? Did the other team game plan against you?
2) Were you at least one of the main drivers of your team (a face or the face)? Think of it this way, during your era, when someone mentioned your team, were you in the top 3 players that people thought about. Obviously, this depends on the team.
3) Did you get any hardware? Did you at least deserve some kind of award during your career? Were you a legitimate all-star for a good period of time?
4) Were you clutch? Did you help win the big game? This doesn't mean did you win championships, although that does help your argument.
5) Did you make your team better? Did you just gather stats or did you make a difference in helping your team win?
6) Speaking of stats, did you produce? I don't care about sabermetrics or WAR, or whatever invented stat that supposedly determines worth of a player. The question is did you produce.
Notice, the question of whether or not you took PEDs (Performance Enhancing Drugs) or some other kind of drug to enhance your ability is not referenced here. Nor does it say whether or not you are an a__hole, jerk, or another derogatory word. Who cares if you were liked? A lot of players in HOFs already fit this category.
Let's start with Pete Rose. There is no doubt he fit all 6 of these categories. He isn't eligible for the Baseball HOF though. Why? Because he gambled as a manager, and on baseball. But let's not stop there, he reached an agreement with the commissioner to be banned from baseball and ineligible to be part of the HOF. Hall of Fame caliber, but he will never be in. Do I care? Hell no.
Let's come back to baseball in a moment. What about Basketball? A little bit of an issue with this sport is the lack of a distinction between Pro and College Basketball HOFs. The question is why? Outside of that, this sport seems to get it in terms of electing the best of the best. However, it is people that believe someone like Robert Horry belongs in the HOF, is just flat out silly. Outside of number 4, where else does he measure up. He claims to be a great defender. That is laughable. How many times did he even make the All-Defensive team? I'd say that is zero. He didn't produce, and he was primarily a bench minutes player for most of his career. He has the audacity to put himself in the same breath as Dennis Rodman. Dennis was kook, but an all-defensive star (7x All-Defense 1st team, 7x Rebounding Leader). Horry's 7 championships hitting clutch shots along stars like Hakeem Olajuwon, Kobe Bryant, Shaquille O'Neal, Tim Duncan, etc. do not make him a HOFer. He was a role player that hit some clutch shots.
Football is very skewed with different eras impacting things dramatically. A WR from the 70s versus one from the 90s or today is a different ballgame. There are also less stats for certain players to be judged on. However, I do believe the committee and discussion concept for the Pro Football HOF might be the best way to go.
Hockey is very similar to Football in that regards, except defense and goaltending stats are higher and offensive stats are not nearly what they were in the 80s.
Ok, I've touched on the HOFs and my pet peeves. Now, let's get down to you really want to talk about...PEDs! If there is one thing that baseball purists want to shove down your throat is Steroids and similar drugs being used in an era for which no testing system was in place. In fact testing for PEDs is relatively new for baseball. It only started during the last decade. Even then, it took the BALCO scandal to get us to the place we are in today. In the 90s after the players strike eliminated the World Series in 1994, it was the battle to break the single season home run record that captivated the audience and a league. While there were some that questioned the sport as to why players were becoming gigantic behemoths, nobody seemed to care to much. There obviously wasn't enough pressure coming from fans, media, players, former players, owners, front office, to get testing started. Attendance and the TV ratings were up, don't mess with a good thing, right.
That goodwill lasted until a scandal (BALCO) came about and led to congressional hearings and an investigation into all testing for PEDs. And led to a "so-called" confidential initial testing of the players and then a flawed testing system initially, before a more stringent system that obviously still has its flaws (I'm looking at you Ryan Braun).
What happens now? A significant amount of "Steroid Era" players are now eligible for the Baseball HOF. Every voter has their own opinion on how to handle this era. Who am I to argue with how they vote? I won't, but let me review some players that I believe are hurt by the garbage process that is HOF voting.
Jack Morris - There are enough people that look only at stats, and say not enough wins, too high of an ERA for his career. But let's test my 6 criteria for him.
Number 1 - The winningest picther of the 1980s (yes),
Number 2 - He was a staple with the Detroit Tigers for the early part of his career, and Minnesota towards the end (yes and no),
Number 3 - No Cy Young awards, but did make 5 All-Star appearances and a World Series MVP in 1991 (yes),
Number 4 - Clutch? 10 inning shutout in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series, 4 World Championships (yes)
Number 5 - Led Tigers in Wins for 10 straight years (1979-1988) (yes)
Number 6 - 254 career wins, 175 complete games, 28 shutouts, 2478 Ks (not ideal, but great for the era he played, yes).
He fits at least 5 of the 6 and is close on the 6th. In my book, a HOFer. He still is 40+ votes short with one year remaining in voting.
I could go on and on and discuss his teammate Alan Trammel, but that is my main example. No one was voted in during 2012, and the rumor is some ballots were left blank. Some of these writers should check themselves for sanity, because if you vote any of these guys in later, is it because time passed, or are you being petty and just making them wait.
As I said, I could care less who is elected from the "Steroid Era," in my opinion, you don't test for PEDs, you reap what you sew. Who's guilty? Who isn't? So here is my theory, vote not caring about who took what and vote on their body of work. If they are proved guilty or low and behold admitted to using PEDs, then instead of a bust of their head, we make a bust of their ass with a syringe hanging out of it. Make a special place in the HOF building related to the education of what Steroids will do to your body and keep track of what happens to these idiots as their health deteriorates and breaks down from taking these drugs to extends careers and become giants. Make them learn what happens to these a__holes.
That is my two cents. Name that wing of the HOF the actual Hall of Shame.
