Change HOF period from 15 to 5 years?

[Jlighter]

Mr. Derek. The problem is that two of those players are not Hall of Famers. The Veterans committee is almost always going to find a player to put in the Hall, whether these two players are elected or not. If the BBWAA starts voting for 5 people a year, we might as well just start calling it The Baseball Hall, this isn't like Kindergraden awards where everyone gets one, people feelings will get hurt, people will be left out.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think 5 years is plenty, and I don't care for the Veterans' Committee either resurrecting players who were not considered good enough in the context of their time, it's a recipe for dilution not to mention an inherently flawed process. In fact it's so diluted already it doesn't have much meaning.

[insidethewrapper]

Just like when Ted Williams was on the Veterans Committee, Rizzuto was going to get in. Same today, when Pete Morris got on the Vet Committee, Deacon White was an automatic pick.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by Jlighter

Mr. Derek. The problem is that two of those players are not Hall of Famers. The Veterans committee is almost always going to find a player to put in the Hall, whether these two players are elected or not. If the BBWAA starts voting for 5 people a year, we might as well just start calling it The Baseball Hall, this isn't like Kindergraden awards where everyone gets one, people feelings will get hurt, people will be left out.

I understand where you're coming from but must disagree. To say some isn't a HOFer...I think you will find many who consider Raines and Morris (I assume that's the two you meant) quite worthy. The thing people fail to realize is that not everyone who was HOF material was Mays or Mantle or Ruth. And that's OK. There can be "tiers" of members even within the already elite top 1%. The Mantles and Aarons of the world were the very upper eschelon, even by HOF standards, but that doesn't mean a very good player (like Larkin, Blyleven, etc.) are NOT worthy of enshrinement because they weren't as good as the top 10 names in history.

[jcmtiger]

Originally Posted by dgo71

I understand where you're coming from but must disagree. To say some isn't a HOFer...I think you will find many who consider Raines and Morris (I assume that's the two you meant) quite worthy. The thing people fail to realize is that not everyone who was HOF material was Mays or Mantle or Ruth. And that's OK. There can be "tiers" of members even within the already elite top 1%. The Mantles and Aarons of the world were the very upper eschelon, even by HOF standards, but that doesn't mean a very good player (like Larkin, Blyleven, etc.) are NOT worthy of enshrinement because they weren't as good as the top 10 names in history.

That is true, all future HOF players will not meet rhe standards of the 1st Five.

Joe