Posted By:
steve k<<< I still a firm believer in putting the dominant players at their position while they played. >>>
I agree with that but just because a player is dominant at his position during a particular era, doesn't mean that he should be in the Hall of Fame. If all the players at a particular position during a particular era all stunk, whaddayagonnado put the player who stunk the least in the Hall of Fame? Of course not. It's the Bill Mazeroski thing. Was he an excellent player? Yes. Was he the best player at his position, 2nd base, during his era? Arguably yes. Should he be in the Hall of Fame? Absolutely not! Anyone who knows baseball understands that overall almost always the "weakest" ballplayer on the field is the 2nd baseman. So sometimes the best 2nd baseman in a particular era is like saying he was the tallest midget in the circus.
Jack Morris, Jim Rice and some other players mentioned in this thread were excellent players, but in my opinion not Hall of Famers. Morris is close but not quite. Rice arguably but not quite good enough. Morris and Rice were not "midgets" by any stretch of the imagination - both were excellent ballplayers, but let's not put them in the Hall of Fame just because they may have been the best at their position during their era.