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

[wolf441]

I also wonder how the marginal pre-1947 HOFers (Hafey, Marquard, Bresnahan, Klein, Bottomly, etc...) would have done if they had to pitch against players similar to Willie Mays, Henry Aaron or had to hit against Bob Gibson, Juan Marichal, etc...

[frankbmd]

Imagine a world where every prewar player and batboy was in the Hall of Fame and our collections were worth millions as a result. All in favor.........

[Jim65]

I try not to judge players I never saw, not really fair to judge on stats alone. The only player I would put in thats not already is Mike Piazza, I believe he will get in eventually

There are quite a few players I would take out though.

[Jayworld]

I think Gene Tenace. He ranks 13th in JAWS on the catcher's list, above several HOF players:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_C.shtml

Also, Thurmon Munson

[sniffy5]

There is a Hall of Fame A and a Hall of Fame B. HOF A players you don't even have to think about. There is not a whole lot of them. HOF B are players require a hard look. Lots of people think requiring a hard look should be reason enough to prevent a player's induction. And I agree. Of course it's way more complicated than that b/c some feel 300 wins means automatic Hall, others don't think that is so. That's one example of many.

As for Clemens and Bonds, most writers are quick to point out they they were Hall of Famers before their embarrassingly obvious and shameless PED use. But I'm not entirely sure. Clemens got up to Toronto in 1997, dyed his hair blond and found the fountain of youth, and we all know what that fountain was comprised of. His numbers before PED use: 192-111, 3.16. Are these the numbers of a sure fire, absolutely no doubt hall of famer? Maybe they are. Maybe they are not...