[z28jd]

One of the most confusing arguments with the Hall of Fame is the watered down argument. Look at the class of 1946, just ten years into the Hall's existence. There are names that many people believe don't belong in there, which is essentially saying that the guys who started the Hall of Fame process got it wrong. In essence, you're telling them that they made mistakes and we want to make sure it never happens again.

Maybe they didn't make mistakes. Maybe those were the standards they thought were good enough. After all, those are the first standards of the Hall of Fame.

Why does no one ever say, well if it's the benchmark they set, then that's the level we go for in the future? In fact, since those were the early elections, it's even more likely that those standards are higher than the minimum. After all, the point back then wasn't to get the worst players in first and work your way up.

We assume they made mistakes instead because we want the standards to be higher, but that's quite ridiculous when you think about it. Part of the problem was the writers making it harder and harder to get in, there by raising the bar just because that's what they wanted to do.

There's no good reasoning behind that thought process. It would be like Net54 saying only people with nice collections could join the board, then eventually saying only million dollar collectors should be included and those early members shouldn't be in there. Leon made a mistake allowing some people in.

My personal belief for a long time is that the Hall of Fame should be split up into two groups, one for the elite members like Ruth, Aaron, Mays and one for players who deserve to be recognized for their careers like Al Oliver. Players like Oliver don't even come around every season, yet he has no shot at the Hall of Fame, which seems crazy. They would all be Hall of Famers, yet there is an elite group as well. If someone was as good as Oliver over 18 years, he shouldn't be forgotten to time.