MLB HOF Changes Player Eligibility

[The Brain]

A few weeks ago the MLB Hall of Fame made a change to their rules on player eligibility. The way it's always been a player could remain on the ballot for fifteen years to try and achieve election. This has now been changed to ten years. This doesn't seem like a big deal and years ago I would have been in favor of the change. I've always thought is someone doesn't get voted in after ten years they probably don't deserve to get in. I don't think that's what the HOF had in mind when making the change.

We all knew guys like Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, etc. were going to have a hard time gaining election. I have been hopeful that by the time their eligibility expires the fans and voters alike would be forgiving and these players would take their rightful spot. The HOF denies that this change has anything to do with all the players from the steroid era recently coming onto the ballot. I'm not buying it. In my opinion this change was made to try to get these guys off the ballot faster hoping there would not be enough time to heal the wounds. Maybe I sound like a petty conspiracy theorist but that's what I think. Otherwise why the sudden change, especially when in recent years the HOF has welcomed Jim Rice and Bert Blyleven with open arms in their final years of eligibility? Do you think the HOF has made this change to eliminate the alleged steroid users before the media softens up to them or am I out of my mind?

I'm going to throw another question out there for this thread. How do you think the HOF would react if it was revealed that a current member was a steroid or PED user? Let's say hypothetically it someone comes out that Rickey Henderson or Roberto Alomar used some kind of PED. I'm not suggesting they did. This is just for the sake of discussion. Would the HOF try to remove them? Would it open the door for guys like Bonds and Clemens? Would it just go ignored and have no impact?

 

[smizzy]

A few weeks ago the MLB Hall of Fame made a change to their rules on player eligibility. The way it's always been a player could remain on the ballot for fifteen years to try and achieve election. This has now been changed to ten years. This doesn't seem like a big deal and years ago I would have been in favor of the change. I've always thought is someone doesn't get voted in after ten years they probably don't deserve to get in. I don't think that's what the HOF had in mind when making the change.

I am in favor of a Hall of Fame that is extremely elite company. I never supported Jack Morris' Hall of Fame aspirations. First of all, I never got to see him pitch so I don't have that point of view on his career, however, I have of course read into his statistics and accolades, big games, and opinion of his peers. He had a wonderful career, but he doesn't belong next to names such as Nolan Ryan, Walter Johnson, Cy Young, I mean, c'mon. But of course, that's how I define a Hall of Famer: the best, of the best, of the best. And even better than those guys.

With that being said, I like the rule change, I'm sure Jim Edmonds doesn't. But again, case in point.

Do you think the HOF has made this change to eliminate the alleged steroid users before the media softens up to them or am I out of my mind?

That was one of my initial assumptions about the change. And also to avoid anymore Jack Morris situations.

I'm going to throw another question out there for this thread. How do you think the HOF would react if it was revealed that a current member was a steroid or PED user? Let's say hypothetically it someone comes out that Rickey Henderson or Roberto Alomar used some kind of PED. I'm not suggesting they did. This is just for the sake of discussion. Would the HOF try to remove them? Would it open the door for guys like Bonds and Clemens? Would it just go ignored and have no impact?

There would definitely be a committee to decide whether or not to remove them. I would almost expect the player to ask to have himself removed if that were to occur though. If they were allowed to remain however, and a guy like Barry Bonds who at points in his career was one of the most dominant hitters that will ever be born into this world is not let in, than it would be absolutely unacceptable.

 

[Akhilleus]

The MLB Hall of Fame is entirely flawed. I really don't like anything about it whatsoever. Specifically the voting. It's horrible, and I honestly think with this rule change that it's now getting worse. If anything I would have rather they extended it, not decreased it.

I think it's ridiculous that guys like Bonds and Clemens don't get in. Specifically because look at a guy like Bonds. He was great all around. It wasn't just the power. He was one of the best outfielders I've seen, and he had pure speed too. Take away half the home runs he hit and he's still on of the greatest players to step on the field in my opinion.

What's done is done. There are simply different eras in baseball, and everyone should just accept that steroids and PEDs were in their own era. It's like putting an asterisk next to everyone's name in modern day because the fences aren't as far back as they used to be. Or what about players that played before integration? Where the competition was severely declined. Accept that from about 1994 to 2005, it was all about the PEDs and sterioids. And now that we're past that and the league is focusing on eliminating those PEDs, we're about to witness a whole new era where pitching is actually on top. Everybody was doing it. Everybody. And to hold out Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa...it's unfair. Don't even get me started on Pete Rose...that guy didn't even get an advantage as far as gameplay goes and he's the only one who's actually gotten the Chis Benoit treatment from the entire league. You know in MLB The Show 14 for the Playstation, if you go into the MLB Records, they show the guy's names who broke what records. Rickey Henderson, Joe DiMaggio. But you know who they don't show? Barry Bonds. Pete Rose. Just says "San Francisco Giants 2007" and "Cincinnati Reds 1986". The video games don't even give these guys credit!

But anyway, the HOF is just so flawed in so many different aspects. The fact that there can be a year where nobody is inducted at all just bugs me. It doesn't make sense. I've been to the actual Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, NY. I've also been to the Football Hall of Fame in Canton, OH. Let me tell you that I had a way better experience all around at the football hall of fame. Not just because I like Football better, in fact I'm pretty sure I like baseball better than football. But the football hall of fame just had so much more to offer. It was interesting. Cooperstown was just a boring place all around, and the hall of fame just didn't excite me that much. And I love baseball!

I think if someone else came out in another one of their scandals that they wouldn't do anything about it. I can't imagine someone being removed from the Hall of Fame after already being inducted...unless it was discovered that they were behind 9/11 or something. In fact if at all possible they would probably just try to sweep it under the carpet. It's all politics, it always has been. And I defintiely agree with you that the reason they made this rule change is so they don't have get as much heat for as long whenever they refuse to put guys like Bonds and Clemens in.

 

[Paul Bunyan's Axe]

The MLB hadn't made any changes to the Hall of Fame in decades, and then they just decide to change things now? I think it's a pretty obvious ploy to get rid of the steroid era players. But, whatever. As far as being credible, the MLB is more on par with the WWE as far as Hall of Fames are concerned.