Moral Character and the Hall of Fame

[RKKay]

We all know that, to make it to the Hall of Fame, a player must meet certain standards on the field. We also know that certain actions off the field and affect the eligibility of a player, but where should the line be drawn?

Throwing games?
Gambling?
Performance-enhancing drugs?
Domestic violence?
Multiple DUIs?
Adultery?

What is sufficiently serious as to disqualify a potential Hall of Famer? Where is the line drawn? Should on-field actions (e.g. dirty play) be taken into account? Should moral character even come into play? What are your thoughts?

[Mongoose]

Originally Posted by RKKay

We all know that, to make it to the Hall of Fame, a player must meet certain standards on the field. We also know that certain actions off the field and affect the eligibility of a player, but where should the line be drawn?

Throwing games?
Gambling?
Performance-enhancing drugs?
Domestic violence?
Multiple DUIs?
Adultery?

What is sufficiently serious as to disqualify a potential Hall of Famer? Where is the line drawn? Should on-field actions (e.g. dirty play) be taken into account? Should moral character even come into play? What are your thoughts?

At a time in history when MLB was still pretending it was a simple entertainment which valued the communities it served, Walter O'Malley moved the most profitable franchise in the game, which had the most devoted fan base in the game, 3000 miles away for a few hundred acres of free land. This move played a big part in destroying his community. The move also had the effect of destroying the West Coast's indigenous Pacific Coast League.

For this he was recently inducted into the Hall Of Fame.

As far as owners and executives go, there's never been much of a moral standard. Burying rival leagues and cheating players characterizes many of these men who are in the HOF. One is reminded a bit of the top-hatted, moustache-twirling villains from silent cinema. Why hold the players to a higher standard?

[Captain Cold Nose]

Exactly how do you set a standard for something that is entirely subjective? Moral character is not something that can be strictly defined, nor should it be something that can have a set guideline for everyone to follow. We're all human, all fallible. It's not something so black and white a clear line can be set.
Mongoose, Jackie Robinson signing with the Dodgers was as destructive, if not more so, to the Negro Leagues as the Dodgers and Giants moving west was destructive to the PCL. So should he, and Branch Rickey, etc. receive condemnation for that on those same grounds?

[KCGHOST]

It will always be an individual call. There are people who seriously propose the rehabilitation of people who took money to throw games. Generally speaking I prefer for the electorate to decide who gets in, but can understand the logic that bans a few players from even being presented to the electorate.

I don't think O.J. Simpson would be in the NFL HoF if the killing of his ex-wife had occurred before his election.

[jalbright]

I'm not big on using "moral character" as the standard. There's only one thing I'm clearly against, which is clear proof of being a party to fixing games. That isn't in Joe Jackson's favor. I suppose gambling against one's own team is in the same category. Basically, if you don't cause questions about whether you were playing to win, I'm apt to not bar the door, though in some cases I have to hold my nose as they pass. Those that sell out on winning, though, dishonor the game to such a degree I do not feel they deserve to be honored by the game.

[Eastvanmungo]

What happens off the field, stays off the field.

I'd be willing to bet that I wouldn't want to invite about half the HOF'ers to my house for dinner... but I also believe that the HOF should only concern itself with what happens on the baseball field (yes, gambling and steroids are included).

That said, although gambling and steroids should count as serious black marks against a player, they shouldn't immediately ruin an otherwise HOF-worthy player's chances for induction. ie... Barry Bonds is a HOF'er regardless of the steroid accusations... Ken Caminiti is not. ie Pete Rose should be in the HOF, but not Hal Chase.

Just don't induct the the ones we have "proof" about while they are still alive.

[Pete Rose Rounding Third]

Why hold the players to a higher standard?

Because we (the general we, not just you and me) just don't give a damn about the owners, all told. It is the players we pay the most attention to. For many people, it is troubling, even upsetting, to see a guy who plays the game with excellence and grace turn around and be a total jackass when the games are over. When we root for people, we want them to be inherently good - or at least not bad.

And most players, while not perfect and not without flaws, are basically "good". So when one of them turns out to be seriously flawed, it can be hard to take.

[RKKay]

Originally Posted by Eastvanmungo

What happens off the field, stays off the field.

I'd be willing to bet that I wouldn't want to invite about half the HOF'ers to my house for dinner... but I also believe that the HOF should only concern itself with what happens on the baseball field (yes, gambling and steroids are included).

That said, although gambling and steroids should count as serious black marks against a player, they shouldn't immediately ruin an otherwise HOF-worthy player's chances for induction. ie... Barry Bonds is a HOF'er regardless of the steroid accusations... Ken Caminiti is not. ie Pete Rose should be in the HOF, but not Hal Chase.

Just don't induct the the ones we have "proof" about while they are still alive.

Well put. I agree that, in general, morality should be irrelevant. However, in the case of steroids and throwing games, those players are acting without honor toward the game. I think Barry Bonds is a perfect example of someone who would receive a black mark but still deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. Even if the so-called steroid years were removed from his record, he still had a great career. Similarly, as much as I dislike Pete Rose as a person, he epitomizes the way baseball is supposed to be played.

[Paul Wendt]

Originally Posted by Pete Rose Rounding Third

Because we (the general we, not just you and me) just don't give a damn about the owners, all told. It is the players we pay the most attention to. For many people, it is troubling, even upsetting, to see a guy who plays the game with excellence and grace turn around and be a total jackass when the games are over. When we root for people, we want them to be inherently good - or at least not bad.

And most players, while not perfect and not without flaws, are basically "good". So when one of them turns out to be seriously flawed, it can be hard to take.

There is another website you should visit but I can't remember where it is.

at baseball-fever
such insight and eloquence
are not permitted

[Mongoose]

Originally Posted by Captain Cold Nose

Mongoose, Jackie Robinson signing with the Dodgers was as destructive, if not more so, to the Negro Leagues as the Dodgers and Giants moving west was destructive to the PCL. So should he, and Branch Rickey, etc. receive condemnation for that on those same grounds?

I guess the difference is that the Negro Leagues were an unwelcome vestige of Jim Crow. The PCL, on the other hand, was a healthy and established professional league which was already comparable to MLB and which should have been elevated to MLB status. MLB promised they would do exactly this in 1952 after threats from California Congressman Patrick Hillings that baseball's anti-trust exemption would be revoked if MLB didn't come to the West Coast. This was when the PCL was granted open classification by MLB. The Lords of baseball, however, were reluctant to share the pie with the PCL owners.

I’ve always believed there was a bit more than met the eye going on when MLB and the NL gave O’Malley approval to leave Brooklyn and take the Giants with him. Even an idiot could realize that disemboweling it’s biggest market would be bad for baseball.

So why did they do it?

My guess is that O’Malley realized that MLB had a better chance of completely shutting out and destroying the Pacific Coast League if they moved two already successful franchises to the West Coast; this would also get Hillings off their back, so I’d guess he probably justified the move to the Noble Fathers Of Baseball in these terms.

This is from Wikipedia:

A near-major league

In the first half of the 20th century, the Pacific Coast League developed into one of the premier regional baseball leagues. The cities enfranchised by the other two high-minor leagues, the International League and the American Association, were generally interwoven geographically with the major leagues. Such was not the case with the PCL. With no major league baseball team existing west of St. Louis, the PCL was unrivaled as the vehicle for American west coast baseball. Although never recognized as a true major league, the quality of play was considered very high. Drawing from a strong pool of talent in the area, the PCL produced a number of outstanding players, including future major-league stars Joe DiMaggio, Ted Williams, Tony Lazzeri, Paul Waner, Earl Averill, Bobby Doerr, and Ernie Lombardi.

While many PCL stars went on to play in the major leagues, teams in the league were often successful enough that they could offer competitive salaries to avoid being outbid for their stars' services. Some players made a career out of the minor leagues. One of the better known of those was Frank Shellenback, whose major league pitching career was brief [1] but who compiled a record PCL total of 295 wins, against 178 losses. [2]

In addition, the mild climate of the West Coast, especially in California, allowed the league to play longer seasons, sometimes starting in late February and ending as late as the beginning of December. This allowed players to potentially hone their skills more sharply, and also to earn an extra month or two worth of pay and reduce the need to find offseason work, something which even some major league players found necessary because of the low salaries, by today's standards. The longer playing season also provided room for additional games on the schedule, giving team owners a chance at generating more revenue.

Teams sometimes played over 200 games in a single season. The high-water mark was the 1905 season, in which the San Francisco Seals set the all-time PCL record by playing in 230 games (PCL Record Book, p.30). Even just prior to the 1958 reshuffling, the league was playing 170-180 games per season. One consequence of such lengthy seasons was that a number of the all-time minor league records for season statistical totals are held by players from the PCL.

In 1952, the PCL became the only minor league in history to be given the "Open" classification, a step above the AAA level. This limited the rights of major league clubs to draft players from the PCL, and was seen as a step toward the circuit becoming a third major league.

Sudden decline

The shift to the Open classification came just as minor league teams from coast to coast suffered a sharp drop in attendance, primarily due to the availability of major league games on television. The hammer blow to the PCL's major league dreams came in 1958, when the Brooklyn Dodgers moved to Los Angeles and the New York Giants moved to San Francisco. As a result, three of the PCL's flagship teams (the Los Angeles Angels, the Hollywood Stars, and the San Francisco Seals) were immediately forced to relocate to smaller markets. Additionally, the PCL did not benefit from the comparison with the major leagues, which now occupied the same territory and drew away much of the attention of its former fans. The league never recovered from this blow. It reverted to AAA classification, and soon diminished in the public eye to nothing more than another minor league.

Of the cities represented in the PCL in its heyday, only Salt Lake City, Portland, and Sacramento remain, and even these are represented by different franchises than those that had originally called these cities home. The Oakland Oaks had moved to Canada two years before the arrival of the Giants. The San Diego Padres and Seattle Rainiers were displaced by Major League teams in 1969, but by this time the PCL's decline was already far advanced.

Cause and effect?

I suspect that O'Malley probably told Giles and Frick that the move would allow MLB to toss the PCL into the same mass grave as the Federal League, the Player's League, the AA, and the rest of the competition.

And strengthening their monopoly was the one thing I'd bet all the owners could agree on.

So with MLB now on the West Coast, pressure from Hillings ended. Ironically, however, this dirty deal led to the challenge to baseball's anti-trust exemption mounted by Bill Shea and the Continental League, and the MLB owners were forced to expand and share the pie anyway. The difference between stealing the Dodgers from Brooklyn and moving them to L.A., and incorporating the PCL Angels into MLB would ultimately have been nil. By handling the situation like scoundrels, though, MLB created an enduring P.R. disaster that helped pave the way for football to become the national pastime.

And all three architects of this - Frick, Giles and O'Malley - are in the Hall Of Fame.

So the moral bar is already set pretty low.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally Posted by jalbright

I'm not big on using "moral character" as the standard. There's only one thing I'm clearly against, which is clear proof of being a party to fixing games. That isn't in Joe Jackson's favor. I suppose gambling against one's own team is in the same category. Basically, if you don't cause questions about whether you were playing to win, I'm apt to not bar the door, though in some cases I have to hold my nose as they pass. Those that sell out on winning, though, dishonor the game to such a degree I do not feel they deserve to be honored by the game.

This is my position, almost word for word.

[STLCards2]

Of course something like this has never happened (publicly at least), but I wonder where everybody would stand if a likely candidate ever got arrested for a serious felony (murder, rape, child molestation, etc.) in the years between retirement and election? I wonder how peoples' opinions on moral equivalency would play out and if they would let literally wish anybody to the HOF who statistically deserved it, regardless of any moral issue.

Hopefully we won't have to figure this out. Also,I am only throwing out a question - not stating a personal opinion or trying to trap anybody. I am really curious.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally Posted by STLCards2

Of course something like this has never happened (publicly at least), but I wonder where everybody would stand if a likely candidate ever got arrested for a serious felony (murder, rape, child molestation, etc.) in the years between retirement and election? I wonder how peoples' opinions on moral equivalency would play out and if they would let literally wish anybody to the HOF who statistically deserved it, regardless of any moral issue.

Hopefully we won't have to figure this out. Also,I am only throwing out a question - not stating a personal opinion or trying to trap anybody. I am really curious.

What I wonder is what would happen if an INDUCATED HOFer were convicted of a heinous felony? Duke Snider and Willie McCovey have both been convicted of felony tax evasion since induction, but it's been a below-the-radar thing, and hasn't affected their standing with the public much, either.

The NFL hasn't made an effort to remove O. J. from Canton, but he's become sort of a non-person. He's never mentioned by announcers, and he's not prominently featured in any reference to the NFL. I would think that this would be the model MLB would take if a HOFer became a murderer/child molester, etc., but who knows. I don't think ANY sport has ever revoked induction of a HOFer, save for the NHL revoking Alan Eagleson's induction, and Eagleson wasn't a player, so . . .

[STLCards2]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Bear

What I wonder is what would happen if an INDUCATED HOFer were convicted of a heinous felony? Duke Snider and Willie McCovey have both been convicted of felony tax evasion since induction, but it's been a below-the-radar thing, and hasn't affected their standing with the public much, either.

The NFL hasn't made an effort to remove O. J. from Canton, but he's become sort of a non-person. He's never mentioned by announcers, and he's not prominently featured in any reference to the NFL. I would think that this would be the model MLB would take if a HOFer became a murderer/child molester, etc., but who knows. I don't think ANY sport has ever revoked induction of a HOFer, save for the NHL revoking Alan Eagleson's induction, and Eagleson wasn't a player, so . . .

I am pretty confident that unless a HOFer conducts mass genocide through means of an enslaved, dictatorship controlled society, getting kicked out of the MLB HOF will not happen.

[Pete Rose Rounding Third]

at baseball-fever
such insight and eloquence
are not permitted

Thank you very much.
Never been praised in haiku;
very kind of you.

[jalbright]

Originally Posted by STLCards2

Of course something like this has never happened (publicly at least), but I wonder where everybody would stand if a likely candidate ever got arrested for a serious felony (murder, rape, child molestation, etc.) in the years between retirement and election? I wonder how peoples' opinions on moral equivalency would play out and if they would let literally wish anybody to the HOF who statistically deserved it, regardless of any moral issue.

Hopefully we won't have to figure this out. Also,I am only throwing out a question - not stating a personal opinion or trying to trap anybody. I am really curious.

If we got to serial murder or serial rape or child molestation, I'd have to think twice if the guy wasn't in already. The only thing is, you're getting at the issue of whether such a person deserves to be honored at all. But then doesn't when it happened (i.e. probably after his career) come into play? If it happened during his career, the odds are strong it would derail his career and make the issue moot. If it happened after his career, it would have to be heinous indeed (Cepeda admitted to drug smuggling, after all) to tarnish his memory as a ballplayer. If a guy's already in, I wouldn't kick him out for stuff like this, bad as it is.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Bear

What I wonder is what would happen if an INDUCATED HOFer were convicted of a heinous felony? Duke Snider and Willie McCovey have both been convicted of felony tax evasion since induction, but it's been a below-the-radar thing, and hasn't affected their standing with the public much, either.

The NFL hasn't made an effort to remove O. J. from Canton, but he's become sort of a non-person. He's never mentioned by announcers, and he's not prominently featured in any reference to the NFL. I would think that this would be the model MLB would take if a HOFer became a murderer/child molester, etc., but who knows. I don't think ANY sport has ever revoked induction of a HOFer, save for the NHL revoking Alan Eagleson's induction, and Eagleson wasn't a player, so . . .

Eagleson and Gil Stein, who basically selected himself not too long into his tenure as NHL President. Eagleson is the only one thrown out where his election actually had merit. Imagine if Marvin Miller simply lined his own pockets as president of the player's association.

[ol' aches and pains]

I think you have to take it on a case-by-case basis. You can't judge each candidate by some inflexible rule.

If you had a candidate who, for example, had taken PED's, corked his bat, and once hit his wife over the head with a rum bottle, one would hope that would be enough to keep him out. Maybe somebody who had only done one of these things could be admitted.

What I find more troubling is that there doesn't seem to be a way to remove a HOF'r from enshrinement once he's in. As somebody mentioned above, OJ Simpson is still a member in good standing in the NFL HOF in Canton. God forbid a similar situation ever happens in Cooperstown.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Originally Posted by ol' aches and pains

I think you have to take it on a case-by-case basis. You can't judge each candidate by some inflexible rule.

If you had a candidate who, for example, had taken PED's, corked his bat, and once hit his wife over the head with a rum bottle, one would hope that would be enough to keep him out. Maybe somebody who had only done one of these things could be admitted.

What I find more troubling is that there doesn't seem to be a way to remove a HOF'r from enshrinement once he's in. As somebody mentioned above, OJ Simpson is still a member in good standing in the NLF HOF in Canton. God forbid a similar situation ever happens in Cooperstown.

There are people who really want Jose Canseco in the hall. He probably did all of the above, but since he turned on his friends, some think he's a hero.

[Milt on Tilt]

I wonder what would have happened if the awful stuff about Kirby would have come out BEFORE he appeared on the ballot rather than immediately after inducted. If you don't remember Puckett was charged with false imprisonment, a felony; fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct, a gross misdemeanor; and fifth-degree assault, a misdemeanor.

Also Puckett’s ex-wife, Tonya told police that he threatened to kill her during a telephone conversation. Over the years, she told SI, Puckett had also tried to strangle her with an electrical cord, locked her in the basement and used a power saw to cut through a door after she had locked herself in a room. Once, she said, he even put a cocked gun to her head while she was holding their young daughter.

[STLCards2]

Originally Posted by jalbright

But then doesn't when it happened (i.e. probably after his career) come into play? .

Of course it does, which is why I said...

"but I wonder what everybody would stand if a likely candidate ever got arrested for a serious felony (murder, rape, child molestation, etc.) in the years between retirement and election?"

[ol' aches and pains]

Originally Posted by Captain Cold Nose

There are people who really want Jose Canseco in the hall. He probably did all of the above, but since he turned on his friends, some think he's a hero.

I had somebody specific in mind, but it's not Canseco. I don't think of Canseco as a hero, BTW. He's a walking gray area, a world-class sleazeball who is apparently speaking the truth about PED's in baseball. What do you do with him? You certainly don't put him in the HOF, but you can't dismiss him out of hand, either. Real life is too complicated!