I listened to what I think is the most lucid argument about what is wrong with the Baseball Hall of Fame. It also touched on another valid point, one that has been bothering me for quite a while.
When a player becomes eligible for the HOF, his name goes on to a ballot. If he doesn’t get in on the first try, then he is put on the ballot again the next year. And again. And again. And so forth. It ends after a certain amount of time, but I can’t remember how many chances they get.
Here is the argument: if a player doesn’t get in on the first try, why should they be considered again?
Let’s say a guy becomes eligible, but doesn’t get in for a couple of years. Then, the next year, the list of eligible players is not that great. There are no standouts, no shoe-ins, no immortals. The guy gets into the HOF on a technicality – there were no other better choices. Kind of like how we elect Presidents these days.
Is that guy truly a HOF player? I say no. Why does a player deserve more than one shot?
Should Mark McGwire get another chance? In my opinion, he should not have had a chance in the first place. Any player that cranks up his numbers, and especially if they break records, by using roids should be banned from the HOF.
There are quite a few advocates of Barry Bonds out there who say that before he started drugging himself, he was HOF bound. I say tough shit. He made the choice to take the stuff, he should face the music.
This time around he tested positive for amphetamines, and instead of denying it, he is blaming one of his teammates. Pathetic. Is that how we should expect future Hall of Famers to behave? If you want to admit players who broke records by using banned substances, then put up their plaques in the bathrooms.