Posted By:
warshawlaw1. Saying "this guy should not be in because that guy is not in" is not a valid argument. All it says is that the guy who is omitted belongs more than the guy who is in, not that the guy who is in does not belong. Each admitee should be judged on his merits, period. After all, the plaques don't say "this guy was better than that guy", they say "this guy did all the following great things."
2. Maz: I think Bill James can speak best for Maz: "In the Win Shares system I have Mazeroski credited with 113 Win Shares for his defense at second base, which is the highest of all time. ... Total Baseball rates him as the best defensive player at any position..." He belongs in Cooperstown at least as much as a damned reliever.
3. Off-field behavior should be included as a criteria for selection if it negatively impacts on baseball. The rules of the HOF do say that no person who is ineligible to be in the majors can be voted into the hall. Pete Rose belongs in the Hall on his talent; but he should be excluded for his betting on baseball. He took the benefits of being in baseball and knew the rules, and he violated them anyway. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time...