Off-Topic Forum

National Baseball Hall of Fame – Mission Statement:

“Preserving History. Honoring Excellence. Connecting Generations.

The National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum is an independent, non-profit educational institution dedicated to fostering an appreciation of the historical development of baseball and its impact on our culture by collecting, preserving, exhibiting and interpreting its collections for a global audience as well as honoring those who have made outstanding contributions to our national pastime.

The Hall of Fame's mission is to preserve the sport's history, honor excellence within the game and make a connection between the generations of people who enjoy baseball. Likewise the institution functions as three entities under one roof with a museum, the actual Hall of Fame and a research library. With these parts working together the Museum is committed to fulfilling its mission by:

Collecting, through donation, baseball artifacts, works of art, literature, photographs, memorabilia and related materials which focus on the history of the game over time, its players and those elected to the Hall of Fame.

Preserving the collections by adhering to professional museum standards with respect to conservation and maintaining a permanent record of holdings through documentation, study, research, cataloging and publication.”

So Here it goes........

Does preserving history mean only representing that which is deemed to be moral and ethical?  Is that moral or ethical in itself?  The Hall of Fame is an independent, no profit organization.  If that is the case why does a ban from Major League Baseball constitute a ban from the Hall? History is history regardless of the perceived stigma attached to certain transgressions.  This is about asking the National Baseball Hall of Fame live up to it’s mission statement.   The Hall of Fame advocates the preservation of history, then promptly endeavors to stifle that history.  As long as it is popular opinion…  Mickey Mantle was banned from Major League Baseball for almost 5 years and Willie Mays for about 2 years for working in casinos, yet  their plaques remained (as they should, I might add, just making a point).  Fergie Jenkins  was banned from baseball in 1980 when he was arrested for bringing drugs across the border into Canada.  Not just Marijuana, but hashish and cocaine as well.  11 years later he was inducted into the Hall of Fame.  Gaylord Perry (spitballs), George Brett (pine Tar), Whitey Ford (gunk),  Don Sutton(scuffing), Stargell-McCovey-Arron(greenies) are they cheaters?  Ty Cobb (bigot, game fixer),  Cap Anson (bigot), Babe Ruth (drunk, womanizer),  Hack Wilson (drunk),  Orlando Cepeda (drug smuggler),  Paul Molitor (gambling), Wade Boggs (sex addict) are these exemplary members of society? Trying to find the “honor and integrity” here?  I’m not advocating the removal of anyone here, just recognition of the fact that the Hall should be embracing the achievements of the greats of the game from every era.

The privilege of voting belongs solely to members of the Baseball Writers Association of America  in good standing for more than 10 consecutive years.  Why?  Are these guys really more knowledgeable or have higher standards and values than anyone else?  Bill Conlin (pedophile, Spink Award?), really?  Can we assume that these folks are above reproach? Why are their votes not released to the public?  Even congressmen and senators  votes are available to public. They are paid to write about baseball, let them write about it.  Don’t let them use their vote to promote themselves or use it to punish a player they have a personal  or professional grievance with because they weren’t as affable as the media demanded them be.  Too many use their vote as a great means of self promotion, they may publish their ballot with the view that it will be unpopular and create controversy thus keeping their name in the public eye.  Again, let them write. Let them advocate for or against certain players, debate the merits of each of the candidates, but give the vote to the fans. In 2014 Dan La Batard had his voting privileges revoked for turning his vote over to reddit, great publicity for him but it should have been with the fans from the beginning.

Baseball has been and always will be about the fans, whether it is the fans of the past that supported and helped the game grow or the fans of the future who will continue to nurture the game and help it maintain it’s place as an integral part of American culture.  Without the fans baseball would not exist, period… end of story.  The fans support baseball at the turnstiles, watching television, purchasing merchandise as well as visiting the Hall of Fame.  As such they deserve to be treated with respect and reverence, for without them baseball does not exist.  This is a way for the fans to express their love of the game and feel connected to it’s history by being part of it not having it dictated to them. People are not quite as uniformed and illiterate as the Hall of Fame must assume.  

What can be done to improve?

1. Release writers from the vote

2. Give the vote to the fans, it works for the All Star Game and there are notable omissions but voting for players that have played for 10-20 years will eliminate the one off great seasons that are missed due to popular vote in All Star games

3. Let the fans tell you who Hall of Famers are or should be, Major League Baseball isn’t officially affiliated so bans there should have no bearing

4. Embrace history, good or bad. History is only important if it is accurate and without judgement

5. Allow the writers the task of selecting the new candidates to enter consideration each year

6. Voting for the different eras of baseball needs to be addressed as well

            a. selection of contemporary Hall of Fame members and writers from that particular era

            b. if the era goes beyond that from which there are no living members of the Hall or from the writers then committee composed of writers with minimum 15 consecutive years and selection of Hall of Fame members

There are many ways in which the Hall of Fame could or should change.  The fact remains that it should, for the sake of the fan and for baseball itself.

Agree in whole with everything you have said (well I might add). I do see issues with the fans voting; I believe players, coaches and managers might be better voters. But yes, get the writers out of the system.

I'm with Bruno, which means I'm with Smokin' Joe too for the most part. I think fan voting leads to too much bias (actually, I think the writer's voting leads to a tad too much bias as well, but less than the fans). That's actually the problem I have with All-Star voting - it turns into a popularity contest and can be skewered. Remember when Royals fans voted in almost their entire team a few years back before the MLB kinda said, "Hey, wait, no, we can't have that"?

Other than that though, I agree wholeheartedly - those who actually played with and against the guys eligible are the best judge's of the ability and talent put on display. And the Baseball Hall of Fame is for the greatest baseball players of all-time. Not the greatest people (although I do feel strongly that one's character is important, but if you try and find a ballplayer who was great and a perfect person, I think you'll be sorely disappointed).

And I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a proponent of putting Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame. Make it happen already!

I appreciate your passion, and I agree that the HOF should not be the moral police, but I believe they have the right to determine the definition of honor when it comes to the game. There is a difference between stifling history and honoring players, so I disagree with your point there.

I'm a collector of both Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens as I believe they were a talented duo that succeeded in my favorite pastime. I wish they were inducted into the Hall of Fame, but that's not my call. At this time they are deemed unworthy of selection by people that have earned the right to vote based on criteria that was not set up against players, but in support of those who have objectively covered baseball for a period of time.

Is there bias against them for what they are accused of doing while playing? Yes. Are there judgments being made against them that possibly would label the voters themselves hypocritical if we knew more about their lives? Yes.

Fans have never shown to be more knowledgeable or to participate in this type of venture, either, so I'd especially vote against allowing the fans to be the ones who determine who gets in the Hall of Fame.

I understand what you're saying, but part of the problem is that they haven't actually defined anything in regards to honor of the game.. it is still very subjective...  my whole point about the fans is that voting would allow them to feel a part of history of the game and that cant be a bad thing can it?  I realize things have gone a little sour in the past over all star game voting and such but in this day in age people in general are much more informed. I'm not saying it would be perfect, but does anyone believe that a public vote would put Alvara Espinoza into the hall on first vote or at all?  Of course there will be regional biases, cant change that. But at end of day the fans should have their say, seeing as how none of it's possible without them..

Joe, I agree that the honor of the game is subective and my opinion about honor may differ with any number of people, but the big difference is that there is a collective that makes this decision and it's taking into account varying biases for and against certain players. 

As far as fans voting, I'm still totally against that. The exclusivity of the Hall should exclude mass participation in who gets in. 

I agree with you Joshua but the writers have shown their biases and ignorance of the game too often.  Let those who truly understand the game and recognize the true ability of the players do the voting, i.e. those who are on the field and play the game with them.

Let me start by saying that I believe Bonds and Clemens should be enshrined in the Hall.

That being said, I disagree with your premise.  To paraphrase the bolded portion from the OP, the Hall's mission is to honor the history of the game.  The shrine of the greatest players of all time is but one wing of the Hall.  The rest of the hall is filled with artifacts and the history of the game, and the Hall has artifacts from both Clemens and Bonds scattered throughout.  The Hall itself is not doing anything to damage or contradict its own mission.

To me, the "blame" here lies with the BBWAA, not the Hall.  The Hall of Fame is doing exactly what it should be doing.  The BBWAA is the one that is imposing its own morality and cause where it should not be.

Bru, I will add to your point, today's media feels compelled to shove subjectivity down our throats and I'm sure it filters into the Hall voting. I get that, I do. I would tend to believe that there is balance and all things get sorted out by the strength of the collective.

I also believe that one can know the game, understand its complexities, and comprehend the talent that excels and that which doesn't, and not have been a player, or still be playing, and thus be an objective voter for the Hall of Fame. 

I strongly believe that human nature will show no matter who's in charge or given a right to vote. The same prejudices that we believe the media have against certain players exist within the lockerrooms, too. We're all biased in some way because we're imperfect beings and our objectivity is always influenced subjectively.

Since Cap Anson is in, I have no patience for any voter using the morality clause to keep out any players.

Especially when some suspected users who were friendly to media sailed in while Bonds and Clemens wait.