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

[GaryPassamonte]

David- What about the pioneer players of baseball from the pre-professional era? There were probably more changes in the evolution of baseball in the 19th century than any time in the game's history, yet the true pioneer players are virtually unrepresented in the HOF. Why no outcry for their inclusion from the baseball community? It is the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, not the National Professional Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

David- What about the pioneer players of baseball from the pre-professional era? There were probably more changes in the evolution of baseball in the 19th century than any time in the game's history, yet the true pioneer players are virtually unrepresented in the HOF. Why no outcry for their inclusion from the baseball community? It is the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, not the National Professional Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum.

That's basically, what I was getting at. There should probably be more(even more than there currently is) at this point. While I expect there to be significantly less in the future.

The problem with many of the pre-professional pioneers is the lack of proper documentation to really know who was ultimately responsible for what. If evidence appears to really show some new people that had a significant impact on the game, I'm all for their inclusion.. I think Abner is a prime example of a reason to be skeptical of many pre-professional pioneers without definitive evidence. I find it hard to include someone based on speculation..

[Touch'EmAll]

How about keeping the Hall of Fame - no easy entry - only major dominant for their era players - no on the fence players.

Then, another second but different Historical Baseball Museum. To honor the almost dominant yet still all-star caliber players...AND all the other historic figures. You could include Negro players, all the 1800's players who were top notch, managers, administrators, and the like.

Time for baseball to expand to honor its past. Helluva idea, yes?

[steve B]

I'd like to see more pioneers from the 1800's included.
I'm also ok with owners/executives getting in.

Both groups shaped the game, at different times, and in different ways, but the influence is there.

I'm surprised Ruppert wasn't already in. The team he built basically remade baseball in a lot of ways, and in some ways prepared it for broadcast on radio at a time when that became a huge influence in the country. And without that, pro sports itself in the US could be very different.

Steinbrenner I think should be in eventually, his use of free agency made its own changes in the game.

Billy Beane probably should be as well, there just isn't enough history yet to tell just how large of an impact he will have had. But a change away from paying a lot of money for free agents and building competetive teams on a small budget is just as big a change as Steinbrenner paying as much as he did for some players. Maybe in a few years when some information comes out about how the teams that were on the list to be contracted out of the league survived that impact can be measured a bit better. Would we even have the Nationals? Would Baseball have changed to a system like some international sports with a couple "major league" levels sort of like soccer?

The early pioneers shouldn't be held to the arbitrary 10 year limit. There's enough information out there that the influence someone had on the game in the mid 1800's should be something that can be researched, if it's not well known yet.

Steve B