Morality and the Hall of Fame

[gd]

Big discussion over here in the 'Burgh over the past couple of days on the radio, mostly because there isn't anything to talk about with the Pirates being complete shit and whatnot. Anyway, the big issue was basically whether what you do off the field (murder people, rape teenagers, etc.) should affect you in the HOF.

OJ and Lawrence Taylor are obviously two prime cases. Some people were arguing that because of what they did, they should be stripped of the HOF membership, which I found completely ridiculous. The HOF is about what happens on the field. None of the people in there are there because they're great people, they're there because of what they did on the field, which is how I think it should stay.

Guys like Pete Rose and Barry Bonds also came up, but that's a little murkier since their transgressions had more to do with stuff that happened on the field. (I think both should definetly be in, by the way).

So, what do you think? Should morality and the Hall of Fame mix or should a player be judged only by what he did on the field? Sholuld a code of conduct policy be implemented for all current and possible future members of any sports Hall of Fame? Huh? Huh?!?!?!

Please reply, so I can use your opinions for sustinence.

 

[Big Sexy]

Personally I think it should be used but only to an extent. Guys like LT I don't mind being in because of what the crime was that he was accused of. However, if a guy gets committed of murder then no one wants to be associated with them. OJ wasn't even convicted and you still never see him mentioned at HOF ceremonies. When you take someone's life you don't deserve to be recognized for anything even if it's a past accomplishment. When you are in a sport organization's HOF you are considered to be the elite in that particular sport and you are representing the league as a whole. Even when you're retired, as a HOFer your legacy lives on and certain things should cause you that opportunity to have your legacy live on.

 

[Megatron]

While it helps, I don't think that having a good off the field rep is fully important to go in the HOF. Michael Irvin got caught for cocaine a few times, yet he's in the hall. You also pointed out LT and OJ, although OJ's came after he was already inducted. It should be an on-field achievement only because these guys that were inducted changed the game and were stars for many years. That's why I think Rose should be in. He didn't do anything that affected his on game performance.

But Bonds I don't think deserves to be in, at all. Unless there is full blown proof that he is clean (which I doubt) he shouldn't be in because he cheated his way into the record books. His on field performance WAS affected by what he did. So there's a case where I'd say no.

 

[Tenta]

Realistically? I would think it has an effect upon the writers and journalists who have a claim to the Hall of Fame. Mainly because we're talking about old fogies who just don't understand the temptation of a game in which you're a nationally recognized name. Let's be honest, the fact is that placed into the same position, who are we to judge morality? I mean, by what grounds are we able to judge the base of character, without taking into account environment, upbringing, and social class. Should I tack a few points off LT because he didn't live in Middle Class surburbia, and didn't learn things the way we did. Hell no.

Morality, or extra effort, or anything along those lines is the biggest crock I've ever heard in any sport. Those that have the ability, championships, and statistics will get into the Hall of Fame. Unfortunately, we base our sport culture on, "what's in it for me?" Because of this standard we uphold, it's almost impossible to base morality when judging the Hall of Fame

 

[coolant]

I am not one to NOT forgive someone their indiscretions. However when it comes to performance enhancing drugs. I would say no. They cannot be inducted to the HOF as that is something that directly affects their onfield performance. But then again, I am not one to take away their second and third chances at redemption either. So its tough to have a stance on this topic. I guess you have to look at it on a one on one basis. Sosa, McGuire, Palmeiro...no? A-Rod...to me still has a chance. He at least admitted to it when he got caught. Any lies he told after were to protect another party and not necessarily himself. Plus he is not a homerun specialist, he is just a hell of a ballplayer.

It really is a tough debate. And one we will be having until all the players from the steroid era are either in the HOF or become ineligible due to the time for eligibility lapsing.

 

[Ferbian]

I don't see why anything done outside of the field in any manner, that does not affect your life on the field, should ever affect your Hall of Fame induction. It is just like I believe that Benoit should very well be in place for a Hall of Fame induction.

I do not see how anybody in any business that has a Hall of Fame induction available, should not be allowed to be inducted if they have managed to contribute to the business, in such an extend that it warrants them for an actual position in the Hall of Fame.

Morality in my mind, should not have any influence whatsoever on sports when it comes to receiving an honor, that they would have received had it not been for the incidents that occurred outside of the business.

 

[Theo Mays]

I personally don't believe they should take into effect what you did off the field. Your career wasn't determined by what you did off the field. Guys that did steroids or gambled on the sport I can understand, because that deal directly with their sport. But criminal charges and the likes I really don't feel should be held into account. Cris Carter, who is a sure fire Hall of Famer hasn't been put in mainly do to his off the field issues when he first entered the league, and it was easily the same reason Michael Irvin had to wait to get in as well. If you were great on the field, then yes you belong in the Hall and shouldn't have to wait because you did something stupid that wasn't directly related to your sport. I can understand why they look into due to image, but in all honesty it shouldn't be that big of a deal.

 

[The Holy One]

Unless it involves murder or something close to it, I don't really think a player should be held from or stripped of his HOF induction. The HOF is primarily there to honor what the player did on the field/court/diamond (whatever suits you). Off the field issues should not have a deep impact on whether to induct the player or not. I mean if Irvin is inducted without any resistant with his extensive record than why should LT or Pete Rose be treated differently? However, if the person is convicted of taking someone's life then never should they considered in the least form on any ballot.

When the issue comes to steriods however like Bonds, McGwire, and Clemmons, I personally believe that it should be very influential in the committee's decision as to whether they should be inducted or not. If the substance is illegal and the player has been proven to have taken it, then it should hurt their chances b/c it did affect their performance.

 

[shattered dreams]

I think the bigger issue is how Hall of Fame spots are decided anyway. There is an inherent human bias in the process already. What we are discussing here is an extension of that problem. In some sports it is worse than others but pretty much all of them depend on people making a judgment call. When it is journalists, there is an even heavier bias because they have been getting paid to write about all these off the field issues in addition to on field accomplishments. The two have already been intertwined in their mind. I can see the argument for not putting in egregious morality cases but then you are essentially admitting PR rules your hall of fame and suddenly it means a whole lot less. Just look at what has been happening in sports entertainment.

Who wants to be in a hall of fame with a nice guy that was almost great while a legend that was a dick to everyone is out. The popularity contest is a slippery slope. Maybe eventually we go to the ballpark and vote for who wins the game and then they act it out. Even less acceptable in my mind is saying someone is no longer a hall of famer because of an off-field incident later in life. That is totally ridiculous. How do you cease being a hall of famer? Who decides what moral mistakes are acceptable and which are not? All of a sudden journalists, who do a shaky job as it is, need a PHD in philosophy of ethics to decide the hall of fame? Just keep it as it was meant, the people who were the best players on the field. Let the media argue about the rest if they care about it so much. On steroids and baseball for instance, if HGH Bonds hits a homer run of the cream pitcher do those two wrongs make a right? Cheating and getting away with it is one of the oldest sporting traditions.

 

[Razor]

I don't see why. If you're watching professional, American sports for a role model and somehow missed Michael Jordan because you were born ten years too late, then sorry. You're not going to find much to choose from.

Since when has a man had to be morally clean to be really fucking good at a sport? OJ was accused of a double murder, then convicted for life over an armed robbery. He was still really damn good at what he did.

Sure, one could argue for only the most strict of standards. No robbers or murders. Or rapists. Everyone hates rapists.

But we all know how the morality police goes. Once we outlaw a few things from the HOF, we'll soon have a ban on anyone who might have been even accused of such crimes. Then a ban on petty thieves.

Then we essentially have a HOF that only allows people with two parking tickets (at the most) in. Considering the best baseball players of the past were probably coke fiends, the best football players regularly have anger problems, and basketball players can't seem to be half decent without a criminal rap sheet somewhere in their past, we'll have no one left.

But hell, maybe then I can make it into the HOF for playing a single game on the Packers. I'll step on the field, promise that I've never had a traffic ticket before or even been arrested, and receive a call in a few months confirming my nomination. Sweet.

 

[gd]

But Bonds I don't think deserves to be in, at all. Unless there is full blown proof that he is clean (which I doubt) he shouldn't be in because he cheated his way into the record books. His on field performance WAS affected by what he did. So there's a case where I'd say no.

Your thinking is completely backwards. Innocent until proven guilty, isn't that the saying. Sure, he almost certainly did use roids, but there he has been convicted or tested positive. Even so, there were about a million guys doing it back then and everyone, incluce the MLB, decided to turn their backs. Now is it right to turn around and ostracize these supposed juicers and pretend like everything they did never happened? Don't think so.

Another thing to consider, with the steroid users, is how good they were without steroids. Bonds and A-Rod were both on their way to sure fire Hall of Fame careers before they injected anything while guys like Sosa and McGwire wouldn't have been much of anything without the juice. Does that have an impact? In my opinion, all the guys should be in because I think you have to consider what happened on the field without making guesses when it comes to who took what and how much it affected their performances.

I think the bigger issue is how Hall of Fame spots are decided anyway. There is an inherent human bias in the process already. What we are discussing here is an extension of that problem. In some sports it is worse than others but pretty much all of them depend on people making a judgment call. When it is journalists, there is an even heavier bias because they have been getting paid to write about all these off the field issues in addition to on field accomplishments. The two have already been intertwined in their mind. I can see the argument for not putting in egregious morality cases but then you are essentially admitting PR rules your hall of fame and suddenly it means a whole lot less. Just look at what has been happening in sports entertainment.

Great point here. The HOF voters consist mostly of media members who are clearly biased in some way. Take a guy like Andre Dawson, for example. He just go voted into the baseball HOF after about a million years. He's a borderline player, but because he was nice to all the media guys and all, he's eventually able to get in.

Guys who are jerks or who have abrasive personalities when it comes to media relations clearly have a harder time, especially if you a few arrests into the mix. All of this off the field stuff has a huge affect on something that should only be about the game itself.

For any given sport, you should be able to learn everyting important you need to know about the game by going to the HOF. That means including all the greats, regardless of the circumstances surrounding them. Use all of the asterisks and warning lables you want, just as long as everyone deserving gets in.