OT: Who should be in the Hall that isn't

[Peter_Spaeth]

So how do you explain this?
Hall of Fame
2001 BBWAA (28.2%)
2002 BBWAA (20.3%)
2003 BBWAA (13.7%)
2004 BBWAA (12.8%)
2005 BBWAA (11.4%)
2006 BBWAA (12.3%)
2007 BBWAA ( 9.9%)
2008 BBWAA (15.8%)
2009 BBWAA (11.9%)
2010 BBWAA (16.1%)
2011 BBWAA (13.6%)
2012 BBWAA (17.8%)
2013 BBWAA (13.2%)
2014 BBWAA ( 8.2%)

[packs]

Simple. The perception today is that you have to have certain numbers to be a HOFer. Mattingly doesn't have them. My argument is that the HOF has recognized injury shortened careers and HOF potential in its past elections. That same eye should be applied to Mattingly. But it hasn't been. That's what we're discussing.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Simple. The perception today is that you have to have certain numbers to be a HOFer. Mattingly doesn't have them. My argument is that the HOF has recognized injury shortened careers and HOF potential in its past elections. That same eye should be applied to Mattingly. But it hasn't been. That's what we're discussing.

Right, and my point is that if you let people in because the same logic applies to them as applied to past inductees, in your example 50 years or more ago, it would argue for the inclusion of a whole host of players. Standards change, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Suppose you were to apply your logic, and induct every player since 1940 who was as good or better than Chick Hafey or Travis Jackson or Fred Lindstrom. How many people would that be?

[packs]

Is that really true though? Kirby Puckett was inducted as recently as 2001.

I don't think Chick Hafey or Travis Jackson sniff Mattingly. He was the best player in the league. None of those players were the best of anything really. Your examples seem way off to me. I compared Mattingly to Dizzy Dean and Hack Wilson.

I'm talking about a single player with extraordinary talent, not any old player who was decent.

[Kenny Cole]

Peter,

You are right. Standards change. And the HOF abandoned the standard you always argue for by no later than 1946.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Peter,

You are right. Standards change. And the HOF abandoned the standard you always argue for by no later than 1946.

And an unfortunate thing it was too. Particularly when it has been replaced by seemingly fluctuating standards sometimes to the point of letting in players who were not much better than above average.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Is that really true though? Kirby Puckett was inducted as recently as 2001.

I don't think Chick Hafey or Travis Jackson sniff Mattingly. He was the best player in the league. None of those players were the best of anything really. Your examples seem way off to me. I compared Mattingly to Dizzy Dean and Hack Wilson.

I'm talking about a single player with extraordinary talent, not any old player who was decent.

Gooden had extraordinary talent. One could argue Garvey did. Dave Parker at his best was pretty phenomenal. Do you support all of them? Colavito had a phenomenal five year stretch from 58-62 averaging 40 HR and well over 100RBI, does he get your vote? Hodges? George Foster was arguably the best hitter in the game, or close to it, for a few years in the mid-70s. It's a very slippery slope.

[CardboardTragic]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Gooden had extraordinary talent. One could argue Garvey did. Dave Parker at his best was pretty phenomenal. Do you support all of them? Colavito had a phenomenal five year stretch from 58-62 averaging 40 HR and well over 100RBI, does he get your vote? Hodges? George Foster was arguably the best hitter in the game, or close to it, for a few years in the mid-70s. It's a very slippery slope.

1st post on Net54.

I'm on the inclusionary side - the HOF should be for those that stood out amongst their peers. Parker was a beast in his time and was considered amongst the best in the game. Without getting into all the statistical detail, that's been done to death on this thread, he's a yes for me. Same as Hernandez.

But I also think the Hall needs a "Legends" or "Immortals" category. Just looking at the list of current HOFers there's a need for it.

Like an earlier poster I want to see and read about the players that were "huge" during the years I watched baseball. Dawson definitely belongs there, but so does Dale Murphy and Doc Gooden.

Having an "Immortals" section would elevate the Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, Wagner and Aaron careers to where they belong. Best of the Best.

I believe the rest of the HOF should be about being the best of baseball during the period the players played - not comparing them to ghosts in past eras.

I also believe Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa and others should be in. Rose and Shoeless too for that matter. Put an asterisk beside their names if you want. That was a good suggestion.

Don't forget to put asterisks next to the names of pitchers who cheated using spitters too though.

I like HOF discussions. Having 2% or so of players getting in seems about right to me as well. It's all in good fun anyways.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by CardboardTragic

1st post on Net54.

I'm on the inclusionary side - the HOF should be for those that stood out amongst their peers. Parker was a beast in his time and was considered amongst the best in the game. Without getting into all the statistical detail, that's been done to death on this thread, he's a yes for me. Same as Hernandez.

But I also think the Hall needs a "Legends" or "Immortals" category. Just looking at the list of current HOFers there's a need for it.

Like an earlier poster I want to see and read about the players that were "huge" during the years I watched baseball. Dawson definitely belongs there, but so does Dale Murphy and Doc Gooden.

Having an "Immortals" section would elevate the Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, Wagner and Aaron careers to where they belong. Best of the Best.

I believe the rest of the HOF should be about being the best of baseball during the period the players played - not comparing them to ghosts in past eras.

I also believe Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa and others should be in. Rose and Shoeless too for that matter. Put an asterisk beside their names if you want. That was a good suggestion.

Don't forget to put asterisks next to the names of pitchers who cheated using spitters too though.

I like HOF discussions. Having 2% or so of players getting in seems about right to me as well. It's all in good fun anyways.

Welcome to the forum, CT. Nice first post.