View Single Post
  #28  
Old 11-13-2010, 12:00 PM
Exhibitman's Avatar
Exhibitman Exhibitman is online now
Ad@m W@r$h@w
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Beautiful Downtown Burbank
Posts: 13,238
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by D. Bergin View Post
I still don't quite get the exclusion attitude.

A good number of the guys on this list are better then many players already in the HOF. Players that have been in the HOF for decades.

It's not like this would be a sudden watering down. It's seems a lot of people want to impose their own strict criteria to an establishment that never held to that criteria to begin with.

Pretty ridiculous calling ballplayers who were Top 5 in their League at their position for the better part of a decade or more as "Just Better Then Average" or "Very Good".
See, now I don't get that idea. To me it is a logical fallacy--the equivalent of telling the traffic cop you should be allowed to speed because everyone else was speeding too. The Veterans' Committee made some highly political, piss poor selections over the years and enshrined some players who were probably not really worthy of the honor. I don't see the logic of making more crappy choices because the VC made crappy choices before. Heck, at this point I would abolish the VC entirely. The idea of the VC was to clear the players from 75 years of baseball history when the HOF started. It's been long enough to clear the backlog of worthy players. All of the guys on this VC list as players had their chances in the regular eligibility votes.
__________________
Read my blog; it will make all your dreams come true.

https://adamstevenwarshaw.substack.com/

Or not...

Last edited by Exhibitman; 11-13-2010 at 12:00 PM.
Reply With Quote