Does personality matter?

Question

Everyone picks at people like Barry Bonds and they talk about what a jerk Albert Belle was. Then when a question comes up about the Hall of Fame or MVP or Cy Young or whatever, the answer seems to include "he was a jerk" or "he set a bad example for kids." All right, if that matters, can you think of some cases where being a GOOD example puts a guy over the line into deserving the hall or an award?
There's Ernie Banks, of course, who would have made the hall anyway and won two MVPs. And there's Kirby Pucket, who at times made Banks seem like a depressive. But what about some border-liners.
As an example, Tim Raines is coming up for a Hall vote. He has the best lifetime stolen base % lifetime and was a great player. After early drug problems, he turned his life and game around and became one of the best upbeat guys in the game. Should this help him get in?
Can you think of any other players like this? Do you think being a positive image and great should give a guy an edge?

Thomas M -- Yeah, I think he should go, too, but a lot of people consider him borderline. I just think that if it matters and a guy is borderline, it should maybe push him over the line if he was a good guy and not some Bonds/McEnroe/Rose type.

Answer 1

I think Kirby Puckett was an interesting example. After he was inducted into the Hall of Fame, he did a bunch of really creepy things. So, of course, we don't always know the real story.

Tim Raines, to me, was so good on the field that he could get in with a personality like Belle.

Anyways, I think that only in the most borderline cases should character matter. However, sometimes a guy is a disruptive personality on his team, or displays suh leadership it really helps his team. This really does matter to me.

Answer 2

No it shouldn't; however, there is some silly verbage in the rules for voting that a lot of writers are pointing too now. I don't remember what it says exactly something to the affect of the person being of good moral character. Modern sports writers point to it now because a good number (not most mind you but a good number) are jerks who try to irk athletes into quotes and making stories they want (I use to work in papers, trust me). They will use this to once again get on their media high horse, and it gives them a feeling of power. But if you think back Ty Cobb was a racist, beat up a handicap person, took money from gamblers (the commish covered it up) and did a lot worse. Josh Gibson (who I love as a player) was often drugged out of his mind. Mantle, womanizing drunk. You could go on, it shouldnt matter, they all deserve to be in the hall; you're a hall of fame ballplayer, not a hall of fame human being.

Answer 3

I do think that being an overall good representative of the game should come into consideration somewhat. Cal Ripken is an example of someone who scores bonus points in this area. He had a positive impact on the game both on and off the field. I respect Raines that way also, my vote would be that he gets in.

At the same time, it would be an injustice to keep someone out of the Hall when their stats clearly deserve it because he wasn't a "nice guy".

Ty Cobb was a complete prick. He was a hard-core racist, and once jumped into the stands to beat a handicapped man. But he is also one of the game's all-time greats, and is justifiably in the HOF.

Answer 4

I live in a minor league city, and I see lots of former players who are now coaches, managers, scouts, etc. The impression I get, is, be good to the game and the game will be good to you.