"Hall of Fame numbers" are, like many things in life, in the eye of the beholder. In the eyes of many baseball fans, like myself, the numbers Jake Daubert posted are worthy of induction into Cooperstown, for the simple reason that he was better than some of the guys who are already inducted (starting with George "Highpockets" Kelly!). As far as I'm concerned, you could put another 100 players in the Hall of Fame and it would be a better place as a result. Other baseball fans believe there are too many players in the Hall of Fame and the standards need to be tightened so only the "best of the best" get in.
As far as I can tell, most of the Hall of Fame debaters here fall somewhere in between these two views. While I do enjoy the debate, I must admit I do get frustrated at times when people insist they know what "Hall of Fame numbers" look like. The simple truth is that numbers from a pitching-rich era (see 1906) and numbers from live-ball era (see 1930) can't be easily compared. Unfortunately, the Hall of Fame voters haven't bothered to study the differences between the eras. That is why Don Drysdale is in the Hall of Fame and Ron Santo isn't ...
As several board members have pointed out in previous Hall of Fame debate threads, Bill James' "Politics of Glory" is the definitive book on the subject ...
|