Roger Clemens is now a Hall of Famer

I suppose a decent summary of the current view of Roger Clemens is that he was a no-doubt Hall of Famer, but that his alleged performance-enhancing drug use creates (at least some) space for doubt. I'd like to articulate a reverse opinion of sorts: There was some doubt about whether or not Clemens belongs in the Hall of Fame, but it is the connection with performance-enhancing drug use that puts him in for sure.

Ultimately, the argument here is not so much about Roger Clemens as it is about what some might consider a meaningless semantic argument, but one that I have for some time wanted to see articulated more. The basic gist of this argument is that the National Baseball Hall of Fame is not treated as a Hall of Fame (and the same goes for so many other kinds of Halls of Fame), but is treated as a Hall of Achievement--where individuals who perform at specific levels of success are rewarded. If it's going to be treated as a Hall of Achievement, then let's call it that. Otherwise, if it's truly going to align with its name, it's not a place into which one gains entry by performing well, but a place into which one gains entry by being well-known.

So, let's go back to Roger Clemens. How well-known was Roger Clemens before the recent issues involving performance-enhancing drugs arose? Within baseball circles, very well-known. That counts for something, for sure, but not all. What about outside of baseball or outside of sports? Would non-sports fans or non-baseball fans tend to have had any idea who Roger Clemens is? I'm not sure. Perhaps; perhaps not. So, I'd think he'd be on the border for a Hall of Fame that follows its moniker. With the prominence of Clemens' performance-enhancing drug case, I think that many non-sports fans and non-baseball fans throughout the United States have at least some sense of who he is (even if it's just recognition that he was a major league baseball player). So, I'd say he gets in.

In this conceptualization, the Hall of Fame looks very different:

Some who are in certainly stay in. Babe Ruth, for instance, goes in at the head of the class. Jackie Robinson--ditto. Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays--yep. Hank Aaron--I'd say probably not as strongly as those other four, but still in. Ty Cobb--I think in. Stan Musial--I'm not sure; I'd want to talk to non-fans from when he was playing or see something that gives me that context.

Others who are in would not be in. I like Billy Williams a lot, but I think Billy Dee Williams is more likely to get in (he was Bingo Long, after all). Nellie Fox--I named one of my dogs after him, but if not for that, my wife (i.e. non-fan) wouldn't have a clue who he is. Lou Brock, Walter Johnson, Carl Hubbell--I don't think so.

Then, there are those who are not in, but would get in. Roger Maris would likely fit here, because of his 1961 season placing him into more of the general public's eye. Bob Uecker probably goes in quite readily (especially because of Mr. Belvedere). And, at the top of the list, no matter how much gambling he has or has not done, is Pete Rose.

Looking at some more recent cases: Cal Ripken--in. Tony Gwynn--unfortunately, not in. Bruce Sutter--nope. Mark McGwire--in by a long shot. Ozzie Smith--in, I think. Gary Carter--maybe the 1986 Mets gives him just enough to get in, but I think he's out. And so on ... right up to the one guy who I think goes in above all of these players, but didn't even come close when he finally made the ballot: Jose Canseco.

Among current players: Sammy Sosa--in. Alex Rodriguez--in, but probably a closer case than most baseball fans would think. Frank Thomas (uh, who's he?)--out. Ken Griffey, Jr.--I think in. Greg Maddux (and his possible 400 wins)--I think out. Derek Jeter--soooooo in ...

I could be wrong on some of those calls. I think the keys would be to look at their broader cultural significance and how well they were known beyond the world of sports. Of course, one question is "What would this accomplish?" I mean, here we'd be rewarding people for popularity, not performance (like that NEVER happens in the United States (though that's not my argument for having this kind of Hall of Fame)). Well, among other things, it might lead those who have to make the decisions to have to look back on the history of major league baseball in a different kind of way. It would mean getting a sense of how ballplayers were known, how much they were known, and why they were known. It might also tell us something fuller about the degrees to which and ways in which major league baseball has or has not been significant in American history. Indeed (and I'm speculating here), we baseball enthusiasts might find that not as many people know or care about baseball as much as we may tend to think ... and that that was even the case back from the 1920s through the 1950s, when, if you believe many prominent accounts of American public memory (look no further than Ken Burns' Baseball miniseries, for example), everyone knew something about baseball.

And, heck, when we engage in that kind of a look at American public memory, it seems like that has some potential to help make sure that we don't "misremember" the legacies of the likes of Roger Clemens.

Just a thought, anyway ...