Scott Rolen has been elected to the HOF. If they keep this up, they need fo establish two levels of induction: 1) Legends and 2) Really Good Players.
What has MLB HOF come to?
- Thread starter 18IsTheMan
- Start date
They won't let Rose in......Scott Rolen was a really good player. I'd rather have him than some others in the hall.
there isn't that many truly great players. they have to put someone in or they cant have the ceremony/publicity
I'm sure that's what it is. Gotta have a ceremony.
Rolen is a career .281 hitter, 316 HR, 2077 hits. A solid ballplayer? Absolutely. HOF worthy? Not even close.
It's been getting watered down for years, so this is nothing new. But, as you say, you gotta have the ceremony. I think not having some years would make it really special when you did actually have it.
I'm not a Rose fan, in particular, but it is quite silly that MLB is holding onto that issue. Especially now when MLB has partnered with a sports betting site. He bet on the game. So what? It's sports. He didn't sell nuclear secrets to Russia.
He bet on games on played in during his last season in 1986. Strike that season from his stat sheet then. He's still the all-time hits leader. Good grief, the man had over 4,200 hits.
The ban has taken on a life of its own at this point. It's more about maintaining the ban than the ban itself.
Last edited:
Rolen is a poster child for the Hall of Very Good. I watched his entire career. Never saw a Hall of Fame player.
It makes me wonder what they'll even talk about at his induction ceremony. He never led the league in anything. He was never MVP. He was Rookie of the Year and a 7x All-Star, but even being an All-Star doesn't mean what it used to. It was his 6th ballot and he squeaked in with 76.4% of the vote.
What part of banned for life is giving you confusion?
Oh brother. It's not the law of the Medes and Persians. Bans can be lifted.
It's MLB we're talking about here. Not some paragon of virtue.
This reminds me of a discussion on one of the sports shows up here in the up state during off-season. The topic for the day was the “Hall of Very Good”. First inductee for the day was Dale Murphy. Turned out to be a really fun discussion.
Yep, his name always comes up. I've never thought his career warranted it, but, now, he absolutely should be in. He has more hits and homers than Rolen. He actually led the league in some stats...RBI 2x, HR 2x, R 1x. He was also a 7x All-Star, but it had more relevance when he made it. Unlike Rolen, he was acknowledged as being the best player in the league, being voted MVP 2x.
If Rolen is in. It's an absolute injustice that Murphy is not.
Last edited:
I do not disagree with any of the comments noting "very good vs. legends" ... if nothing else, this should send a message to current players that playing within the lines with honor, dignity, and a love and respect for the game means something, too. I am a lifelong Reds fan and it hurts to see Rose not in but I understand ... but I do not see how womanizing, drugs, tax evasionists, etc. can enter ... makes for good discussion ...
Murphy was League MVP tow years in a row. That alone is a pretty impressive accomplishment.
There was no critical evaluation given to Rose's situation. He played the game for 24 seasons and was implicated in betting as a player only in the last season of his career, which wasn't even a full season. Was punishment warranted? Yeah. Is a lifetime ban proportionate the crime committed? No. At this point, it's more about refusing to give Rose the satisfaction of having a HOF ceremony than it is about upholding any integrity of the game. It's been nearly 40 years and MLB now partners with betting agencies. It all just seems silly at this point.
I don't even like Rose.
I thought it was while he was managing and he bet on the reds to win. Hard to be a manager if you're already banned from baseball.
I think the bigger issue is, Rose bet on games he played in and/or managed. It wasn't a situation where Rose was a player for Cincinnati and he was betting on a game between the A's and the Tigers.
Did he bet as a player?
Edit: according to ESPN he bet on games he played in during the 1986 season.
Yeah, I get it. But, again, the punishment seems disproportionate to the crime. Nobody has ever shown that he cheated or tried to throw games. I think being made a pariah for nearly 40 years is sufficient punishment.
I believe he bet on games the last year of his playing career in 1986.
He's a seedy character, for sure.
lol, he certainly cannot be considered the best center fielder of all time. Not remotely close.
IF that is the standard, Shoeless Joe in before ANYONE else of questionable reputation. I will die on this hill.
ha, no biggie. I only know for sure because I looked up this am.
Yes, he should be in. His ban, like that of Rose, has taken on a life of its own. It's no longer about what the player actually did.
I should have qualified it as defensive center fielders, which is what I meant to initially post. Jones is clearly Hall of Fame worthy though.
I felt that Rolan was the best third baseman in the game when he played.
Andrew Jones owned center field for something like 15 years and has gold gloves galore plus 400 hrs. Helluva lot better candidate than this guy imo.
There has already been evidence of undeservedness for quite awhile. In this age that is obsessed with inclusiveness - in the worst sense of the word - it is getting worse - everywhere.
one of my least favorite players but I think he deserves to be in.His on the field accomplishments say he should be in.
At this pace, I think they should develop a two-tiered system:
Level 1: Legends
Level 2: Standouts (or some other cheesy name)
The former acknowledges those players who have carved out a place among the games all-time greats. The latter acknowledges those players, who though they may not have attained legendary status, they excelled among their contemporaries.
You simply can't lump in Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Ted Williams etc with Harold Baines and Scott Rolen. It's insulting to both groups of players.
Level 1: Legends
Level 2: Standouts (or some other cheesy name)
The former acknowledges those players who have carved out a place among the games all-time greats. The latter acknowledges those players, who though they may not have attained legendary status, they excelled among their contemporaries.
You simply can't lump in Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Ted Williams etc with Harold Baines and Scott Rolen. It's insulting to both groups of players.
If so, what has changed in the last 6 years? Nobody was elected to the HOF in 2021 and Rolen was on the ballot, receiving only 53% of the vote. Has perspective on his career changed that much in 2 years?