Posted By:
Gary B.and I'm sure some many here would disagree, is (besides Pete Rose and Joe Jackson), there is no one on anyone's non-HOF list here that is just a screamingly obvious choice for inclusion. What this says to me is that everyone who is a very obvious choice makes it in, and many who are questionable or borderline make it in, but everyone who is a top tier level player ALWAYS makes it into the hall. I think it's interesting when people use the argument of someone being dominant in their time, as I don't think that's a great reason to let someone in. While Gary Carter (to use an example) may have been the dominant catcher of his era, is that reason enough to let him in? I'd be just fine with there being years, or even several year periods where you just don't let anyone in at all because they don't qualify. It's really sad that the standards of the Hall have been brought down by letting in some borderline players that never should have made it in the first place as it allows players of a similar ilk to then be let in. Of course no true hall of fame is complete without Rose and Jackson, but that's IMHO of course...