No announcement yet.

Are there things that automatically disqualify a player from the hall???

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Are there things that automatically disqualify a player from the hall???

    My question is that are there factors (i.e. steriod use, suspected steroid use, negative speculation, illegal activity, etc.) that virtually disqualify a player from the hall??? I ask this because by looking at numbers and performance alone, players such as Joe Jackson, Pete Rose and Mark McGwire are HOF calliber players in my opinion. However, Jackson and Rose have been banned and many say McGwire has no chance of getting in. Also, their are also many who say Palmeiro can't get in because he tested positive for steroids. However, he hit over 500 home runs and 3,000 hits. If it weren't for the positive test results, many would have definetly placed him in. So are these numbers irrelevent now????

    This also also brings up another question: Is it fair to disqualify great players due to these factors????
    Yankees '09

    Arod, CC, AJ, DJ and Tex

  • #2
    Rose and Jackson are flat out inelligible until and unless they get reinstated (along with Ciccote, Jim Devlin, Hal Chase, etc.). I'd almost be willing to bet my right hand that McGwire and Palmeiro both make the Hall (although they'll almost certainly lose first ballot status).
    "Simply put, the passion, interest and tradition surrounding baseball in New York is unmatched."

    Sean McAdam,


    • #3
      I do not think steroid use will bar a player
      Sorry National league the DODGERS have return


      • #4
        Automatic disqualifications:
        1. Placement on baseball's ineligible list;
        2. Playing fewer than 10 seasons.

        As for steroids:
        1. Caminiti and Canseco have admitted to taking it knowingly.
        2. Sheffield admitted to taking it unwittingly.
        3. Bonds, Giambi, McGwire, Palmeiro, Sosa, etc. have not admitted to taking anything.
        4. Giambi admitted to vague mistakes and was named in legal testimony.
        5. Has Bonds been named in legal testimony?
        6. Palmeiro is the only candidate of note to have failed a drug test. He served his punishment. His story remains one of surprise and accident.
        7. Canseco named names in his book, but his integrity is highly questionable.

        To Disqualify a Steroid User from Cooperstown...
        -The first step is to get proof of steroid use (or a confession)
        -Next would be to determine when/how long they had been used
        -Followed by an estimate of how much they "enhanced" performance
        -Followed by how that estimate adjusts the player's performance record
        -Followed by deductions for "character" and "sportsmanship"
        -Followed by a re-evaluation of that individual's HoF chances

        With what is known/suspected at present, only Caminiti and Canseco have "disqualifed" themselves, in my opinion. The former was never a serious candidate and the latter nailed his own coffin shut with his confession.
        "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
        "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
        "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
        "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe


        • #5
          canseco actually seems like the only one telling the truth - integrity is a problem for the others mentioned


          • #6
            I don't think Sosa should get in. I think he used a corked bat, and I think he used steroids. IMHO.


            • #7
              I think that the only bar from HOF membership should be whether or not a person is serving a suspension, whether it be temporary or permanent. If Rose's or Jackson's suspensions are ever lifted, they should be eligible for enshrinement.

              The REAL filter for the HOF is not "rules" but the voting process. The BBWAA and even the VC both understand that the HOF is an honor and not an entitlement, so this reduces support for unsavory characters of various sorts. Then, too, there are the people who have been offensive, stepped on toes, etc. These guys don't go right in, either. Albert Belle will have a long wait, Carl Mays is still waiting, and Leo Durocher is an example of how bad associations and abrasive conduct can keep someone out of the HOF.

              If we have "rules", we will have political correctness. We will have people kept out of the HOF because they were "racist" or "bigoted". Or because they were "wife beaters". Whether a person who is any of these things is worthy of HOF enshrinement is subject to debate, but if we make a rule barring such people from enshrinement, what shall we do about the racists, bigots, and wife beaters that are already in the HOF?

              I can't really think of anyone who is of such reprehensible character as to dishonor the HOF. (I would view Jackson's enshrinement as such an event.) There are HOF mistakes and HOF injustices, but in the area of character, the HOF voting process hasn't worked terribly at all.
              "I do not care if half the league strikes. Those who do it will encounter quick retribution. All will be suspended and I don't care if it wrecks the National League for five years. This is the United States of America and one citizen has as much right to play as another. The National League will go down the line with Robinson whatever the consequences. You will find if you go through with your intention that you have been guilty of complete madness."

              NL President Ford Frick, 1947


              Ad Widget