Nationals Arm Race

Here's a question for you; Is Pete Rose "in" the Hall of Fame? Photo unknown via luminousroc.com

(Editor’s note: I wrote this more than a month ago but got sidetracked.  So apologies for the content being a bit dated).

A post-mortem thought to the overwhelming number of baseball columns, blog postings and sabrematrician rants against Jack Morris but emphatically for Jeff Bagwell in the weeks swirling around the 2012 Hall of Fame elections.

What exactly does it mean to be “in” the Hall of Fame?

Yes, I know what it really means; if you’re elected to the HoF,  you get a bronze plaque in the Hall of Fame gallery, listed among all others that have been elected and selected over the course of the past 80 years or so.  (Of course, if you go an look at the names on the plaques I’ll challenge you to recognize all the names enshrined; there’s been so much revisionist history of players from the 1930s done by veterans committees, as well as an almost apologetic enshrinement of nearly every halfway decent Negro Leagues player from the early part of the century, that the actual “Hall” contains mostly names that are unknown to most mainstream baseball fans.  But I digress…).

But here’s the thing; for all that is spoken about the fact that Shoeless Joe Jackson and Pete Rose “are not in the hall of fame” …. they really are!  Both players have their images and discussion of their impact on the game in the various decade-specific exhibits, and nearly every other player who has been of significance has a picture or part of an exhibit at some point within Cooperstown’s walls.  Both players are bio’d, discussed and have their accomplishments documented.

So, in some ways I don’t really “get” the argument.  All these players we argue about endlessly ARE in the Hall of Fame.  As is Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds and most of the steroid-era players by virtue of their mention in the “Records” exhibit about 2/3 of the way through the museum.

For me, the Hall of Fame is a museum dedicated to the history of the game; certainly that’s how its set up and configured (If you’ve never been … you’d probably be surprised if you visited).  All these aforementioned players are a part of that history, whether we like it or not.  And the Hall recognizes that, not shying away from listing players who have known warts or who have had their candidacy for the enshrinement section banned by a current or former Baseball Commissioner.

Maybe all these arguments surrounding whether or not Player X belongs “in the Hall of Fame” need to be tempered, or at least modified to say “in the specific enshrinement exhibit.”