Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike D.
The list is imperfect but interesting. I don't know that WAR and stat line per 162 games are very good measurements of a Hall of Famer, especially those that didn't play 162 game seasons, but to each his own.
What's interesting about the list is how much it skews "old timer". People always talk about the Hall of Fame like the Hall of Fame standard is going DOWN, but in reality, it's been trending UP for a few decades.
Just as not every Hall of Famer elected today isn't a "inner circle" Hall of Famer, most Hall of Famers historically also aren't "inner circle".
|
I think we were doing really good until a few years ago; selections were getting better and better but the last few years we’ve had a lot of highly questionable selections from the era committees. I think the writers have pretty much always picked deserving candidates on the whole. The Fritsch committee period and it’s open corruption was probably the worst; I give a lot more leeway in context for the 1950’s selections of 19th century players. The research industry in baseball wasn’t really a thing then, they had limited information and most of them aren’t terrible selections on the whole.