Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>Like I stated then (and a lot did not agree with me of course). The HOF is for the BEST players of All-Time. I think the following criteria should be used for pitchers and hitters - this would weed out the 100+ that do not belong! All of these criteria should, of course, be based on where the person "stood" when his career ended.<br /><br />Pitchers:<br /><br />Top ten in:<br />Wins<br />ERA<br />Strikeouts<br /><br />Hitters:<br /><br />Top ten in:<br />Average<br />Homeruns<br />RBI<br /><br />Again, if a person is/was in the top ten when they retired from MLB in one of these cats., then they are in! I truly believe if the Hall used this criteria starting in 1936, then we would truly have a Hall of Fame! As for those great defensive players - sorry, you should have spent more time in the batting cage. At least if the Hall based entry on these criteria, we would not be arguing "so and so" should be in because somebody else is in - this would eliminate ANY biases in voting and truly seperate the Greats from the so-so players.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Scotty, I read an article proposing that same exact formula, but the writer also realized the major flaw in it. If you start at 1900 and vote in the those top 10 players from each position, how silly do they look 100 years down the line when you have a bunch of 19th century and Deadball Era players in the HOF that have no business being there. <br /><br />Then there is the problem that as time goes by, it becomes virtually impossible to crack the top 10. You want to use Wins, Ks and ERA for pitchers. We NEVER see a pitcher crack the top 10 in ERA in our lifetime, or anyone elses unless there are radical changes to how pitchers are handled. And with Clemens being tied for 10th in wins and Maddux 24 wins from 10th all-time, we have probebly seen the last pitcher to ever crack the top 10 in Wins. <br /><br />I may see if I can figuer out some sort of database that would show jsut how bizzar this HOF would look.<br /><br />Jay<br /><br />Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Peter Thomas</b><p>I am old enough to have seen Oliva play and sitting in Fenway he was the hitter I feared the most in the sixties. In the end bad wheels did him in like Cepeda and in Rice's case bad eyes.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Jay - After looking at the actual statistics, I will go with my initial assessment: any pitcher who does not average &gt;+4 wins per season qualifies to be forgotten.<br /><br />In order to be considered for enshrinement in my opinion, a pitcher must have one of the following credentials:<br /><br />.600 W-L record<br />3000 Ks<br />300 Wins<br />2.75 ERA <br /><br />And if a pitcher possesses more than one of those credentials, they are assured of careful consideration.<br /><br />Gil

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>However, I meant to start the "top ten" at the year 1936 - when the Hall of Fame actually started electing in players (boy, those first five sure belong!!!!). You are correct - if someone started at 1900, you would have the same mess we have today, except in reverse. Instead of mediocre players from recent years in the Hall, we would have them from the 19th Century!<br /><br />I still disagree with you regarding the players of the future - if they can't break the top ten of those criteria, they really are not among the elite of Baseball! Maybe pitcher would start working a little more - less days rest - just like the old days! They would certainly have to if they wanted in the Hall of Fame someday!<br /><br />The only mistakes I see with my criteria is probably the following should be added:<br /><br />pitchers:<br />win/loss percentage<br /><br />hitters:<br />hits<br /><br />That would make it "THE TOP TEN, WHEN A PLAYER RETIRES STARTING IN 1936 IN THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES":<br /><br />Pitchers:<br />win/loss percentage<br />strikeouts<br />wins<br />ERA<br /><br />Hitters:<br />Average<br />HR's<br />RBI<br />Hits<br /><br />We would then have a TRUE Hall of Fame!<br /><br />

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>Anyone think the Veterans Committee will induct anyone this year? Thoughts on whether anyone on teh ballot is worthy or would dilute the Hall further. Their ballot includes Smoky Joe Wood (he wasn't on the 2003 ballot for some reason), Gil Hoges, Santo and Maury Wills, among others. I say let Smoky in: 116-57 W-L record, 34-5 and three World Series wins in 1912, career ERA of 2.03, etc..after arm was hurt, became outfielder and hit .283 lifetime average.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Santo, Bill Dahlen and Bobby Mathews are the only real gross oversites I can see. Could also put Deacon Phillippe there too as he was the ace of the great Pirates teams that featured Wagner.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>Based on the voting last time, I would say the only player with a real chance is Hodges. When umpire Doug Harvey is eligible again in 2 years, he also has a good chance.

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>OK, I do not really believe Guidry belongs in the HOF but if you want to make comparisons to Koufax forget Gooden or Blyleven. Winning percentages were almost the same (170-91 for Guidry and 165-87 for Koufax), each had 3 20+ win seasons, Koufax had a better ERA (2.76 vs. 3.29) and KO numbers (2396 vs. 1778) but Guidry won more in fewer opportunities (368 games for Guidry vs. 397 for Koufax).<br /><br />Adam

Boggs & Sandberg are in
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Hodges hit more HRs in the fifties than Mantle or Mays. Only the Duke out homered Hodges during this period.<br /><br />Blyleven has over 3000 Ks. All other pitchers who have achieved this level of strikeouts are in, or will be.