"If you gotta really make a case for a guy, he shouldn't be in ..."
It would be a very small Hall of Fame under those circumstances. I was just reading how Harry Heilmann was his era's Ron Santo. There were actually voters who insisted he wasn't worthy even though he hit .342 lifetime (#12 on the all-time list) and won four batting titles, never hitting under .393. Like Santo, everybody felt guilty for ignoring him and he was elected the year after he died ...
I hear many fans and voters talk about how so and so isn't worthy of being in the Hall of Fame, but they rarely point to statistical evidence backing up their opinions. It's my belief that the debate has to start with a meaningful comparison of the numbers. I don't think the problem is too much debate, it's that too many debaters — including many voters — simply haven't done their research ...
|