Is Baseball's Hall of Fame Overpopulated? ...or

[HOF Yankees]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Lee Smith is the poster child for the argument of longevity vs. dominance. (And I'm a fan of Smith's!)

To me, the biggest puzzle of how to reward longevity is Eddie Murray. Nobody ever said "Man, that Murray, what a freakin' stud!!" But year after year he was really good -- but never great. And 20 years later, he piled up numbers like almost nobody else. So does he compare to Gehrig or Foxx or even Sisler?

Ken

Ken In response to your question, I gave it some thought and here is my thoughts. I feel if a player is higher on a stat/career list, and higher over one or more already in hall of famers, he should be in cause its not fair to put players in over a player that for example as we were talking on the saves list Lee over Eckersley and Fingers, of course Lee was a good player and you can see cause of his saves, now Rivera and Hoffman are going to be hall of famers for sure but if you can put half of the 3,000 hit club, or 300 plus win pitchers in what's wrong with the 3rd best reliever in the history of baseball, so to me it seems un fair that most hall of famers get in by stats and not talent or by both. I feel in my opinion the current baseball hall of fame writers all should be fired and replaced, now I may get crtiscm on that but that's what I feel, and much was said about Hernandez and few other mentioned by members on here about players that should be in, and they are not.