The full Baseball Hall of Fame Class of 2024 was announced this week, and three players were voted in by the Baseball Writers Association of America: Adrián Beltré, Todd Helton, and Joe Mauer.
Yeah, but what about much more clear examples of deeply morally problematic behavior? Convictions of child abuse or rape? Or Rose’s or Jackson’s behavior if they HAD been in the ballot? You seem to be implying but not stating or explaining why even if there were a clearer standard, these sorts of things can’t be weighed against home runs or RBIs (and, pshht, isn’t putting someone in the Hall based on RBI totals nearly as problematic?)
Stay tuned for my next post, "In Defense of RBIs"....
On your other points: My own personal inclination is to judge players almost entirely based on their on-field performance. But if there's a real problem with letting in too many convicted rapists, then we can adopt a standard that says something like, "if you are convicted of a violent crime, you are banned from the Hall of Fame" (although OJ Simpson is in the Pro Football HoF and nobody seems to have a problem with that). The Rose/Jackson example is kind of helpful here because there's at least a standard being followed there. The rules say if you are banned from baseball, then you can't be in the HoF. Perhaps those rules are too harsh, or the bans too extreme, but then those rules should be reformed. We shouldn't just make exceptions for people we like. Similarly, the Hall of Fame shouldn't become a forum for baseball writers making moral judgments on a case-by-case basis, imo.
Yeah, but what about much more clear examples of deeply morally problematic behavior? Convictions of child abuse or rape? Or Rose’s or Jackson’s behavior if they HAD been in the ballot? You seem to be implying but not stating or explaining why even if there were a clearer standard, these sorts of things can’t be weighed against home runs or RBIs (and, pshht, isn’t putting someone in the Hall based on RBI totals nearly as problematic?)
Stay tuned for my next post, "In Defense of RBIs"....
On your other points: My own personal inclination is to judge players almost entirely based on their on-field performance. But if there's a real problem with letting in too many convicted rapists, then we can adopt a standard that says something like, "if you are convicted of a violent crime, you are banned from the Hall of Fame" (although OJ Simpson is in the Pro Football HoF and nobody seems to have a problem with that). The Rose/Jackson example is kind of helpful here because there's at least a standard being followed there. The rules say if you are banned from baseball, then you can't be in the HoF. Perhaps those rules are too harsh, or the bans too extreme, but then those rules should be reformed. We shouldn't just make exceptions for people we like. Similarly, the Hall of Fame shouldn't become a forum for baseball writers making moral judgments on a case-by-case basis, imo.