Quote:
Originally Posted by Mungo Hungo
So unless you’re advocating for a big expansion of the HOF, it would seem that you should have a chapter on players who, in a perfect world, would be expunged. Otherwise, you’re bascially just moving the bar lower, which creates borderline HOFers out of players who are currently very good, but not all that close. Then someone pushes for the new borderline players to come in, and the pattern repeats itself.
A chapter on revising the standards and voting procedures might help too. There are plently of stories about certain people having outsized influence to get in their own favorites. And the whole thing has been done with a decided lack of professionalism since the beginning. Whay does it have to be that way?
|
+1
It’s all relative. So you would need an objective standard by which you can justify that your picks are better than existing picks, like hallofstats.com does.
Of course, some like Ross Barnes or Harry Stovey could be justified through qualitative means, like being an early trailblazer/innovator.