Posted By:
Gary B."I think many people wouldn't like the "One Shot" rule because there might be long stretches where nobody gets in and they couldn't have a baseball game and a party ever summer for the new inductees. But that's what would balance out the years where "a ton" of players did make it."
I'm all for this. If a person isn't good enough to get in on the first try, they shouldn't be there. I think it's ONLY because the hall was allowed to become watered down with less than cream of the crop players that people like Sandberg are allowed in, but he's by far not the worst of the marginal HOF'ers. I could list off 50 names of the greatest players in the hall like Cobb, Ruth, Lajoie, Hornsby, Dimaggio, Williams, Gehrig, Young and many, many more, and then list a whole bunch of marginal players like Ryne Sandberg, Gary Carter, Kirby Puckett and the like - it just doesn't wash, does it? They're just not in the same category no matter how you want to dance around it - being the best in a position in a given 10-15 year period is just NOT enough to qualify IMHO. Either don't let these people in or have a second tier system where only the best of the best make it to the top tier.
In the situation someone mentioned above where there are 3 great players in a year, the 4th marginal person would be voted in the next year. I say if they weren't good enough to get with those 3, they don't deserve to be there - they may be not QUITE as good as ripken, mcgwire, boggs, etc., but if they belong there, they belong there, and I think the baseball writers are highly irresponsible to vote people in they didn't think were worthwhile the first time just because that's the best choice they have for the one or two players they feel they need to have each year. It cheapens the hall of fame significantly. If we had 4 people one year, no one at all for 3 years, then 1 person, then none, than 2, etc., I'd be very happy - having at least one person every year is often just silly, like next year will be...