Ok, nothing against Scott Rolen as a human being - I mean, I don't know if he's more Mother Theresa or Pol Pot, to be honest, but I'm assuming he's a'ight.
But as a player? He shouldn't be a Hall of Famer.
Now, MLB is doing a full on propaganda offensive to convince you he is. But no. I'm not buying it. It is/was/was commonly perceived as the most exclusive HOF of any sport. It should remain so.
2077 hits, a .220 postseason average, 316 home runs (in a super HR favorable era). It doesn't scream Hall of Fame to me.
And honestly, isn't that something that SHOULD be a criteria for the Hall? You should hear a guy's name and nod, content that the voters got it right (or near enough for horseshoes). I appreciated Rolen as a solid player, a very good player, but I never even thought he'd sniff Cooperstown. And I think that was the consensus during his career. He only cracked the top ten in MVP votes once, and only got any votes at all four times.
If we're being honest, he's in because the players *actually* worthy of the Hall are shadow banned for steroids (Bonds, Clemens, Arod, etc) and so the BBWAA must conjure up a name and pretend they are doing their due diligence.
Rolen isn't the most egregious admission to the Hall. It still doesn't make it right.
No comments:
Post a Comment