No, I don't think. Just being cynical, but I probably should have added some more thoughts to my post to clarify. I do get his point. What I find troublesome is how players who (unfortunately) skirt rules - whatever they may be - become scapegoats for a system that's got plenty of issues to go around. Obviously that doesn't absolve them of their offense and they're dealt with in myriad ways as spelled about by the labor agreements. It's tiresome to me that the Hall is used to represent some sort of public shunning - a punishment not handed down my MLB but by other participants in the industry. My preference would be that the Hall tell the story of the game and it's best performers - worts and all - and be OK with that, recognizing that the story is insanely compelling (beautiful and tragic) and set aside the judgment aspect. But, as that is not the purpose of the Hall, I guess "in vs out" debates will rage as long as the game stands. Lastly, it was good to read the posts re: Shoeless Joe's actual performance in relation to his inclusion/ exclusion in the Hall vs all the other stuff as it's what you generally hear about.