Brad Harris
12-02-2007, 07:20 AM
Well, unfortunately for those who back him here, he made his bed, and he has to lie in it.
While in a practical sense that's true, it certainly doesn't speak well of the judgment of the voters.
He was a guy with some very severe character flaws,..
As is virtually every other Hall-of-Famer, ballplayer and human being. Few such "flaws" impede a ballplayer's performance and subsequent value to his team. Just as you or I are still able to perform our jobs well in spite of having "character flaws".
...and on the HOF vote, that is part of the consideration to be a part of the hall.
Yes, but what part? As there's nothing specified in the guidelines, it's up to individual voters to determine how much they weight each element of the voting criteria. And for one person to weight "character" heavily enough to discount an Albert Belle is no more acceptable or less silly than for another person to weight it heavily enough to disqualify anyone but a saint. By placing much emphasis on non-playing elements of a player's record, one quickly finds himself in murky waters without a compass or an oar. And the entire exercise is rendered pointless because of the relativity factor. One man's trash is another man's treasure. And I think the voters should be debating amongst themselves about which candidates were the better players, not which were the better people.
Moral judgement? Yes. And I agree it may not be right.
It's not. Selecting ballplayers to honor as the greatest in the history of the game is not an act of exercising moral judgment, but rather critical (i.e. analytical) judgment.
I just don't think of Albert Belle as a hitter and think "Hall of Famer".
Because you're too hung up on thinking of Belle as a scumbag. Belle was one of the best hitters in baseball throughout his career and his career exceeds the minimum standards of Hall eligibility. That, to my mind at least, does say "Hall of Famer."
I think to myself "good hitter that had some big seasons and just sort of disappeared".
I could apply that exact line of thinking to Sandy Koufax: "good pitcher who had some big seasons and just sort of disappeared." Oversimplifying an issue is a great way to avoid dealing with it objectively.
If he had been a different person personality-wise? I think he's in.
Obviously, look at Kirby Puckett. If only that mean old Joey had chased those pranksters after his election.
I mean, this man lost the 1995 MVP for no less a reason than being a total douche to every member of the media. Not smart.
And the BBWAA proved they were no better when they cast their votes.
While in a practical sense that's true, it certainly doesn't speak well of the judgment of the voters.
He was a guy with some very severe character flaws,..
As is virtually every other Hall-of-Famer, ballplayer and human being. Few such "flaws" impede a ballplayer's performance and subsequent value to his team. Just as you or I are still able to perform our jobs well in spite of having "character flaws".
...and on the HOF vote, that is part of the consideration to be a part of the hall.
Yes, but what part? As there's nothing specified in the guidelines, it's up to individual voters to determine how much they weight each element of the voting criteria. And for one person to weight "character" heavily enough to discount an Albert Belle is no more acceptable or less silly than for another person to weight it heavily enough to disqualify anyone but a saint. By placing much emphasis on non-playing elements of a player's record, one quickly finds himself in murky waters without a compass or an oar. And the entire exercise is rendered pointless because of the relativity factor. One man's trash is another man's treasure. And I think the voters should be debating amongst themselves about which candidates were the better players, not which were the better people.
Moral judgement? Yes. And I agree it may not be right.
It's not. Selecting ballplayers to honor as the greatest in the history of the game is not an act of exercising moral judgment, but rather critical (i.e. analytical) judgment.
I just don't think of Albert Belle as a hitter and think "Hall of Famer".
Because you're too hung up on thinking of Belle as a scumbag. Belle was one of the best hitters in baseball throughout his career and his career exceeds the minimum standards of Hall eligibility. That, to my mind at least, does say "Hall of Famer."
I think to myself "good hitter that had some big seasons and just sort of disappeared".
I could apply that exact line of thinking to Sandy Koufax: "good pitcher who had some big seasons and just sort of disappeared." Oversimplifying an issue is a great way to avoid dealing with it objectively.
If he had been a different person personality-wise? I think he's in.
Obviously, look at Kirby Puckett. If only that mean old Joey had chased those pranksters after his election.
I mean, this man lost the 1995 MVP for no less a reason than being a total douche to every member of the media. Not smart.
And the BBWAA proved they were no better when they cast their votes.