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

[GaryPassamonte]

I totally agree that the number of executives inducted has become excessive. The Hall should be for the players first and foremost. Being a 19th century guy, I find it ludicrous that there are probably more executives in the HOF than 19th century players. Many 19th century players played fewer than 10 major league seasons because their careers started prior to 1871 and the beginning of professional baseball. These players are excluded from HOF consideration. Yet an executive is not held to this standard. That's just nuts.

[triwak]

I also agree that the HOF should be for players and managers only, including:

1. Major Leagues
2. Negro Leagues
3. Pre-Major Leagues

I would rather the executives and umpires have their own HONOREE wing, like the broadcasters and writers currently have. (Broadcasters and writers are not technically INDUCTEES, despite how their peers in the media refer to them). I believe it is still possible for a pre-major league player to get inducted as a "pioneer," e.g. George Wright and Candy Cummings. But I agree that many of those early players have been overlooked. BTW, I am one HOF collector who does NOT believe that the Hall is watered down by the currently inducted players.

[GaryPassamonte]

I believe George Wright and Candy Cummings are the only players elected as pioneers and this happened in 1937 and 1939. 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. The pioneer category has been lost for players since then, while many executives have been inducted under this category. I believe the HOF has forgotten the pioneer category altogether for players. No 10 years, no consideration.

[novakjr]

As far as executives, I really think it should be solely for executives that helped change and shape the game as it's known today. Obviously, the game is still evolving, but eventually we will get to a point, where there won't be very many highly influential executives/pioneers, and will simply be owners and dude's doing their jobs.. 50-100 years from now, I believe that the ratio's will even themselves out and that a smaller percentage of the total inductees will be executives. But for now, while it may seem high, but we're at an early enough point in the game's history, where there is still a large percentage of executives who have had great influence on the game and are deserving of inclusion..

Honestly, within the last 30 years, how many executives do we really see as having had a significant impact on the game? Not many...Maybe Billy Beane and his moneyball? Maybe Theo? but mostly because he was the youngest GM ever and helped the Sox end the curse. Significant? yes. Impactful though, maybe? Yes, there are some very well known executives(like Steinbrenner), but true impact, game changing executives are becoming few and far between. And I expect that trend to continue..

[johnmh71]

Yes, and because Frankie Frisch pushed to have so many guys elected by the veteran's committee, there should actually be more than the number that is in there based on stats and the era they played in.

[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?

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

I believe George Wright and Candy Cummings are the only players elected as pioneers and this happened in 1937 and 1939. 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. The pioneer category has been lost for players since then, while many executives have been inducted under this category. I believe the HOF has forgotten the pioneer category altogether for players. No 10 years, no consideration.

+1

[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.

[SteveMitchell]

+1

Originally Posted by triwak

I also agree that the HOF should be for players and managers only, including:

1. Major Leagues
2. Negro Leagues
3. Pre-Major Leagues

I would rather the executives and umpires have their own HONOREE wing, like the broadcasters and writers currently have. (Broadcasters and writers are not technically INDUCTEES, despite how their peers in the media refer to them). I believe it is still possible for a pre-major league player to get inducted as a "pioneer," e.g. George Wright and Candy Cummings. But I agree that many of those early players have been overlooked. BTW, I am one HOF collector who does NOT believe that the Hall is watered down by the currently inducted players.