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

[triwak]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

Wright played more than 10 major league seasons and Cummings less. Cummings is the only 19th century player elected that played less than 10 major league seasons.

Gary, does the Hall of Fame credit the National Association years (1871-75) as Major League? Actually, does MLB now do that? It seems that is still kind of a gray area, depending on which baseball resource one is referencing. I seem to recall, that a MLB historical committee in 1968 decided NOT to include the NA as a major league. I wonder if that has changed?

[vintagechris]

I used to be one of those that thought too many people get in, but have lightened my stance in recent years. I for one, think it's a shame that a player who may have been the best fielder at his position, like a Keith Hernandez, isn't considered a Hall of Famer.

To me it just shows the emphasis put on hitting. For the record, I was never really a Keith Hernandez fan either. In fact I always pulled against the Cardinals and the Mets, but I think the guy is a HOF'er. I also think Ted Simmons is. Again, this is from a point of view of being less strict with the criteria for determining a HOFer.

[novakjr]

I think Curt Flood deserves some major "pioneer" consideration..

[GaryPassamonte]

Ken- As far as I know the NA is considered a Major league by the HOF.
David- Flood is not given enough attention.

[Clydewally]

I certainly prefer the Baseball Hall to some of the others like basketball (that one is a mish mosh of international players, pioneers, women, college and NBA players and executives which makes it much less interesting to collect).
My main problem with the Cooperstown standard is that it is too often a lifetime achievement award and rewards longevity more than dominance. So you get the Don Suttons and guys like Palmiero who would likely have gotten in but PEDs and ignore the Mattingly's who was considered one of the top players of the 80s (thankfully they made an exception for Koufax).
I am not sure I would put in the short lived greats like Murphy, Maris and Mattingly, but I don't like to see everyone who lasts long enough to amass high totals without really being a dominant player make it either.

[cubsfan-budman]

Originally Posted by Clydewally

I certainly prefer the Baseball Hall to some of the others like basketball (that one is a mish mosh of international players, pioneers, women, college and NBA players and executives which makes it much less interesting to collect).
My main problem with the Cooperstown standard is that it is too often a lifetime achievement award and rewards longevity more than dominance. So you get the Don Suttons and guys like Palmiero who would likely have gotten in but PEDs and ignore the Mattingly's who was considered one of the top players of the 80s (thankfully they made an exception for Koufax).
I am not sure I would put in the short lived greats like Murphy, Maris and Mattingly, but I don't like to see everyone who lasts long enough to amass high totals without really being a dominant player make it either.

All those players you mention got the award they deserve for being the best player for a short amount of time, the MVP award. Doc Gooden would be in the HOF if all it took was the potential for greatness.

[GaryPassamonte]

Clydewally, you make an excellent point. The most elite HOFers had both dominance and longevity. Other HOFers were either dominant with shorter careers or simply played long enough to accumulate certain numbers. I'll take the dominant shorter career player over the career accumulator every time. Too much emphasis is placed on certain career milestones and not on domination while playing. The best measuring stick of a player's greatness is how he stacks up against his peers when he played. Rules change, bats change, ball change, etc. Numbers are deceiving.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by cubsfan-budman

ADoc Gooden would be in the HOF if all it took was the potential for greatness.

Doc Gooden WAS great, not just potentially great. So was Mattingly. Unfortunately, their greatness came at the beginning of their careers. People have forgotten just how good they were because they weren't so great later on. Koufax, on the other hand, was great at the end of his career. Being great later is better. That's what people remember, and, insofar as Koufax (one of my favorite players btw) is concerned, that's what people voted on.