I think, rightfully so, many of us quickly assign automatic top-tier status to the early 19th century greats of the game. We love their cards, collect them ravenously, and they were great players. And there are no "but"s about to follow. I think we are somewhat reluctant to grant absolute icon status to a player we have seen play, or played post '40's. DiMaggio and a few others are exceptions of course. Mantle was great, but K'd constantly. Held that record til Reggie came along. Can a top tier player really be the guy who struck out more than anyone? Or just about anyone? I think there is Hall of Fame A, and it is quite small, and Hall of Fame B, and it is very varied and fine the way it is, but has players that don't belong in A. Clearly don't belong.
I think most of the early players thought of as top tier would be somewhat "era proof," meaning they would excel similarly today. I think one player that is completely era-proof is Pete Rose. And I'm not from Cincy and don't spend a second caring if he gets into the Hall. And we all saw him play, and I think he gets 4000+ hits if he's born in 1875 or 1985. Sorry for the digression....
|