Thought for the day
 

If Hack Wilson is a HOF'er than Roger Maris is as well.

https://baseball-trivia-game.com/ima...ris-wilson.jpg

I'd give Wilson the edge by a hair based on the career numbers, but I think the correct answer is "neither really belong". The "if A than B" argument is a slippery slope. That's the problem with bad choices.

I mean, Albert Belle has far better number than either, and I don't think he should be a Hall of Famer either.

I'm a small hall guy but I usually present the argument if a belongs than b belongs while feeling that neither belong.

I get it, it's the reverse of they typical "if A than B" when someone argues that B should be in. I like it.

The errors of the past are unfortunate. People all the time say "the Hall of Fame standard is going down", but over the last 20 years or so, we've stopped putting so many poor choices in*, so the standard is actually going UP.

* - Harold Baines is the exception that proves the rule. I'd suggest Jack Morris is another.

LOL you picked my two examples for "well hell, X is better than..." With Baines for hitters and Morris for pitchers. If we HAD to enshrine everyone better than those two the hall would double in size and I don't believe that's hyperbole.

The vast majority of "bad" choices, like Baines, Morris, and Wilson were made by various permeations of the "veteran's committees". I feel like those committees are valuable for picking up players the writer's should have elected (Alan Trammell, for example), but they need some criteria and openness, not closed door secrecy.

There should be a process to kick people out lol.