MLB HOF - Too Big or Too Small?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by sycks22

The moment Baines / Raines got in it became a joke.

I'm with you on Baines, but Raines was criminally underrated due to the misfortune of laying at the same time as Rickey Henderson. Raines belongs.

[timn1]

Raines is a no-brainer, man!

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I'm with you on Baines, but Raines was criminally underrated due to the misfortune of laying at the same time as Rickey Henderson. Raines belongs.

[glchen]

I voted too big. However, saying that, I think the MLB HOF is much, much better than the NBA or NFL Hall of Fames. The main problems that I have with the MLB HOF are that it tends to value longevity too much, and is also sometimes too dependent on the player position. For example, if a player just plugs away, plugs away, and somehow manages to get to 3000 hits, that's an automatic ticket to the HOF even if he were never really great or just great for 1-2 seasons. For the position player argument, I see justifications that this player deserves to be in the HOF because he's was the 8th best 2nd baseman or 9th best hitting catcher. I think it's well known that the toughest fielding position is SS (or maybe 3rd base), and if you're not quite as good, then you get moved to 2nd base. If you really can't field very well, you get moved to 1st base or LF. Some players try to be catchers if they have a hard time making it at other positions. Therefore, I don't think it's right that if you're the 8th best 2nd baseman, you can make it to the HOF, where say the 20th best SS can't make it, but if that SS had moved to 2nd base, then he would be much more likely to be in the HOF. The example I'll use here is Mike Piazza. He was never that great of a fielding/throwing catcher, but his batting stats as a catcher put him in the HOF. However, if he were exclusively a 1st baseman, I doubt that he'd make it.

[perezfan]

I voted “a little too big”. I would’ve said “just right” 6-7 years ago, but feel the last few years have been way too lenient. I always thought of Rice, Dawson, Hoffman, Baines, Blyleven, Morris, Sutter and Lee Smith as very good players. Never watched any of them (during their playing days) thinking they were surefire HOFers.

I really wish there were fewer “Closers”. I wonder if the day will come that top-tier pinch hitters, pinch runners and other single-inning players will get in.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by glchen

I voted too big. However, saying that, I think the MLB HOF is much, much better than the NBA or NFL Hall of Fames.

The NBA doesn't have a Hall of Fame. The recognized Naismith HOF covers more than just the NBA.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by glchen

I The example I'll use here is Mike Piazza. He was never that great of a fielding/throwing catcher, but his batting stats as a catcher put him in the HOF. However, if he were exclusively a 1st baseman, I doubt that he'd make it.

If he was exclusively a 1B, his already great numbers (400 homers, 143 OPS+) almost certainly would have been even better without all that wear & tear. Even without that, he'd be an obvious HOFer.

[egri]

I think the HOF is the right size. There are a plenty of marginal players, some in some out, who can be argued convincingly either way, and a few real head-scratchers who can’t be removed, so discussions about their Hallworthyness are academic.

[Mike D.]

I think the hall of fame is too big. Last time I was there my feet hurt after walking around the entire place.