[Archive]

Posted By: Kenny Cole

The Hall of Fame hasn't been for great players since 1945, at least by current definitions. In 1945, Bresnahan and Jennings were elected. Both are now generally panned as among the lesser deserving of the HOFers. In 1946 you get, among others, Chance, Evers, McCarthy, Tinker, Waddell, so forth and so on. They are all now commonly considered among the less deserving too.

I wasn't there back then and didn't have a vote, but either: (1) the "marginal" HOF players were better then than now, which ain't possible - in that regard, they have likely lost a lot of luster because their stats aren't that great and that's now what they are almost solely judged upon; (2) the Hall has not been reserved for the "great" players in well over 50 years; or (3) definitions have changed during that period. I don't know which it is, but suspect that a combination of numbers 2 and 3 is probably more or less accurate.

In any event, while qualifications can be argued, those who have been elected will stay there. Those who haven't been elected, especially those from the 1800's and early 1900's, have basically no shot under the new rules. Much as I think that Mullane, Ryan, Van Haltren and Caruthers are every bit as deserving as some who have been enshrined, I don't see that happening. Does the fact that they weren't elected somehow make them less good than they were?