While I don't agree with the end result of ignoring the hall, I agree with most parts of your argument against it. One positive argument about the proceedings (maybe the one that causes me to still care) is that they are a rare actual, tangible display of progress. Yes, it is stupid that obvious HOFers like Tim Raines are made to langu…
While I don't agree with the end result of ignoring the hall, I agree with most parts of your argument against it. One positive argument about the proceedings (maybe the one that causes me to still care) is that they are a rare actual, tangible display of progress. Yes, it is stupid that obvious HOFers like Tim Raines are made to languish on the ballot for a decade, but at the same time it is very cool to see a bunch of predominantly old, white guys slowly realize they were wrong and change their ways.
For all the handwringing we do about the character clause, we actually DO just care about on-field performance, and to the extent we make exceptions (gambling, PEDs, and absolutely nothing else) we do it based on the belief that off-field actions directly affect on-field performance. That Pete Rose managed his teams worse than he otherwise would, that Shoeless Joe tanked the 1919 Series, that Bonds and Clemens turned baseball into the WWE. Agree with that or not, but that's the rationale.
Schilling WILL get in, probably next year. Dale Murphy, stand-up guy, likely never will.
The knowledge about Vizquel abusing his wife will have no effect on anyone's vote. It will come down to the same old school stats vs sabermetrics arguments we've all been having since Bill James worked at a factory. People might use it to win an argument, but no one will use it for their vote. And the people who bring up Bonds's and Clemens's personal lives? Are people who are squeamish about PEDs but don't want to make that argument directly, probably because they want to elect Pettitte or ARod.
If I were Emperor, I would ban the phrase "character clause" because the arguments are beyond tedious, but no one is actually using character stuff to pick someone. It IS on-field performance, however the voters choose to measure that.
BBWAA voters and fans. You almost never hear "character clause" invoked for anything besides gambling and PEDs. The writers like to moralise and make people beg but they let in players based on accomplishments. Alomar had to wait a year as penance for spitting on an umpire, but he got in. Schilling will get in. The only exceptions are gambling (and even then I think Pete Rose would have gotten in if Giamatti hadn't died) and PEDs (and even then, it's people are mad that Bonds and Clemens set important records. No one cares about Piazza or IRod or Pettitte).
While I don't agree with the end result of ignoring the hall, I agree with most parts of your argument against it. One positive argument about the proceedings (maybe the one that causes me to still care) is that they are a rare actual, tangible display of progress. Yes, it is stupid that obvious HOFers like Tim Raines are made to languish on the ballot for a decade, but at the same time it is very cool to see a bunch of predominantly old, white guys slowly realize they were wrong and change their ways.
For all the handwringing we do about the character clause, we actually DO just care about on-field performance, and to the extent we make exceptions (gambling, PEDs, and absolutely nothing else) we do it based on the belief that off-field actions directly affect on-field performance. That Pete Rose managed his teams worse than he otherwise would, that Shoeless Joe tanked the 1919 Series, that Bonds and Clemens turned baseball into the WWE. Agree with that or not, but that's the rationale.
Schilling WILL get in, probably next year. Dale Murphy, stand-up guy, likely never will.
The knowledge about Vizquel abusing his wife will have no effect on anyone's vote. It will come down to the same old school stats vs sabermetrics arguments we've all been having since Bill James worked at a factory. People might use it to win an argument, but no one will use it for their vote. And the people who bring up Bonds's and Clemens's personal lives? Are people who are squeamish about PEDs but don't want to make that argument directly, probably because they want to elect Pettitte or ARod.
If I were Emperor, I would ban the phrase "character clause" because the arguments are beyond tedious, but no one is actually using character stuff to pick someone. It IS on-field performance, however the voters choose to measure that.
Who's we?
BBWAA voters and fans. You almost never hear "character clause" invoked for anything besides gambling and PEDs. The writers like to moralise and make people beg but they let in players based on accomplishments. Alomar had to wait a year as penance for spitting on an umpire, but he got in. Schilling will get in. The only exceptions are gambling (and even then I think Pete Rose would have gotten in if Giamatti hadn't died) and PEDs (and even then, it's people are mad that Bonds and Clemens set important records. No one cares about Piazza or IRod or Pettitte).
There are all manner of awful people in the Hall.