It's supposed to be a "museum" correct? Museums don't make judgments as to character or bow to biases. They tell history, blemishes and all. Bonds, Clemens and let's not forget Pete Rose who are among the hierarchy of the greatest players this game has seen and any purported baseball museum without them in it is a farce at worst and dishonest at best.
There's a deeper conversation about museums to have there, but yes, ideally that's what they're supposed to do. I mostly stopped caring about the hall of fame inductions a few years ago and gotta say, it feels liberating, lol
Went for the Halladay induction but otherwise haven't spent much time thinking about it at all.
It is a farce and certainly if the sportswriters were consistent, they would admit Bonds and Clemens (along with Ortiz). Frankly, the whole period during the 1990s deserves an asterix, as I suspect that more than half the league (pitchers, as well as hitters) was juicing. In that environment, Clemens and Bonds were still dominant. Plus both had HOF numbers before the alleged steroid use took place.
Yes, nasty people, but then again, so were Tris Speaker, Rogers Hornsby and Ty Cobb.
What I find even more puzzling is why the numbers don't match up 100% in the voting for Clemens and Bonds. If you vote for one, hard to see why you wouldn't vote for the other.
But, yes, largely a farce and highly compromised as the Marvin Miller episode illustrates.
We should never get tired of beating this drum.
It's supposed to be a "museum" correct? Museums don't make judgments as to character or bow to biases. They tell history, blemishes and all. Bonds, Clemens and let's not forget Pete Rose who are among the hierarchy of the greatest players this game has seen and any purported baseball museum without them in it is a farce at worst and dishonest at best.
There's a deeper conversation about museums to have there, but yes, ideally that's what they're supposed to do. I mostly stopped caring about the hall of fame inductions a few years ago and gotta say, it feels liberating, lol
Went for the Halladay induction but otherwise haven't spent much time thinking about it at all.
It is a farce and certainly if the sportswriters were consistent, they would admit Bonds and Clemens (along with Ortiz). Frankly, the whole period during the 1990s deserves an asterix, as I suspect that more than half the league (pitchers, as well as hitters) was juicing. In that environment, Clemens and Bonds were still dominant. Plus both had HOF numbers before the alleged steroid use took place.
Yes, nasty people, but then again, so were Tris Speaker, Rogers Hornsby and Ty Cobb.
What I find even more puzzling is why the numbers don't match up 100% in the voting for Clemens and Bonds. If you vote for one, hard to see why you wouldn't vote for the other.
But, yes, largely a farce and highly compromised as the Marvin Miller episode illustrates.