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

[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.

[jhs5120]

I love that executives can be inducted. Men (or women) who devote their life to the game and leave a lasting, positive impression deserve to be considered.

[HOF Yankees]

Lee Smith needs to be in top 5 in saves c'mon, excersley and fingers have less and they are in

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by HOF Yankees

Lee Smith needs to be in top 5 in saves c'mon, excersley and fingers have less and they are in

Lee Smith is the poster child for the argument of longevity vs. dominance. (And I'm a fan of Smith's!)

To me, the biggest puzzle of how to reward longevity is Eddie Murray. Nobody ever said "Man, that Murray, what a freakin' stud!!" But year after year he was really good -- but never great. And 20 years later, he piled up numbers like almost nobody else. So does he compare to Gehrig or Foxx or even Sisler?

Ken

[HOF Yankees]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Lee Smith is the poster child for the argument of longevity vs. dominance. (And I'm a fan of Smith's!)

To me, the biggest puzzle of how to reward longevity is Eddie Murray. Nobody ever said "Man, that Murray, what a freakin' stud!!" But year after year he was really good -- but never great. And 20 years later, he piled up numbers like almost nobody else. So does he compare to Gehrig or Foxx or even Sisler?

Ken

Ken In response to your question, I gave it some thought and here is my thoughts. I feel if a player is higher on a stat/career list, and higher over one or more already in hall of famers, he should be in cause its not fair to put players in over a player that for example as we were talking on the saves list Lee over Eckersley and Fingers, of course Lee was a good player and you can see cause of his saves, now Rivera and Hoffman are going to be hall of famers for sure but if you can put half of the 3,000 hit club, or 300 plus win pitchers in what's wrong with the 3rd best reliever in the history of baseball, so to me it seems un fair that most hall of famers get in by stats and not talent or by both. I feel in my opinion the current baseball hall of fame writers all should be fired and replaced, now I may get crtiscm on that but that's what I feel, and much was said about Hernandez and few other mentioned by members on here about players that should be in, and they are not.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by HOF Yankees

Ken In response to your question, I gave it some thought and here is my thoughts. I feel if a player is higher on a stat/career list, and higher over one or more already in hall of famers, he should be in cause its not fair to put players in over a player that for example as we were talking on the saves list Lee over Eckersley and Fingers, of course Lee was a good player and you can see cause of his saves, now Rivera and Hoffman are going to be hall of famers for sure but if you can put half of the 3,000 hit club, or 300 plus win pitchers in what's wrong with the 3rd best reliever in the history of baseball, so to me it seems un fair that most hall of famers get in by stats and not talent or by both. I feel in my opinion the current baseball hall of fame writers all should be fired and replaced, now I may get crtiscm on that but that's what I feel, and much was said about Hernandez and few other mentioned by members on here about players that should be in, and they are not.

(NOTE: I am not trying to argue here, just debating a little. I'd love to see Smith get in, but that's because my Smith items will be worth more.)
There are 2 common rebuttals to your post.
1) The slippery slope. Saying player A was better than player B, and player B is in the HOF, so player A needs to be in is going to water down the Hall really quick. Here are 2 reasons why: First off, there are some terrible mistakes already in the Hall, so matching George Kelly or Rick Ferrell will take years and they'll have to build another wing. Second: There are too many BB stats, and with so many players, you can play the comparison game forever. Catfish is in, and he's no different than Tiant, then Kaat, then John, then Pettite, then before you know it you're at Tim Hudson (don't laugh, he's won 100 more games than he's lost!) And that's just building off Catfish, not Marquard. Where does it end?

2) Your use of "3rd best reliever." What makes him 3rd best? Best is a very subjective term, and calling him "best" because he's 3rd on the list of saves is a fallacy. I'm sure most would agree that they'd rather have Eck or Rollie on the mound than Smith if it's game 7 of the WS. Ask yourself this: Is Pete Rose the best hitter of all time?? Most prolific, absolutely, but not even a marginal fan is going to say he's best.

Regards,
Ken, who's wondering why nobody even talks about Alan Trammell!?!

[kmac32]

Originally Posted by HOF Yankees

Lee Smith needs to be in top 5 in saves c'mon, excersley and fingers have less and they are in

I personally know Lee Smith, and he is a true Hall of Famer. The job the current baseball writers are doing is a joke. Talk about politics.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by kmac32

I personally know Lee Smith, and he is a true Hall of Famer. The job the current baseball writers are doing is a joke. Talk about politics.

I've heard that before, and I'd like to see him in as well. He had a lot of saves just before the era when the closers were used nearly every game and saves became very common. Along with a couple other guys he probably formed the profile for the modern closer.

I think the difference between him and Eckersley and Fingers (And Gossage and Rivera) Is they were nearly automatic an occasional bad outing, but usually no problems at all. Smith, at least while with the Red Sox was an adventure more often than not. Still got the job done, but it always made you nervous watching.

Steve B