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

[Jlighter]

Originally Posted by VoodooChild

My personal opinion is that there are not enough players in the HOF. I know I'm in the minority, but my own test is that if a player dominated for 5 or so years and was considered one of he best handful of baseball players on the planet, then he deserves to be enshrined. It shouldn't just be for players that were "lucky" enough to play for 20 years and reached some random statistical milestones.

Eddie Murray was a great player and deserves to be in based on his total career. But, his most dominant 4 or 5 year stretch was on par with the likes of Maris, Dick Allen, Dale Murphy, and Mattingly. All of them even won MVP's unlike Murray. Murray played 21 years ('77 - '97) and compiled the numbers, but his last "dominant" season was 1985 after which he never led the league in any major stat.

To me, it's the "Hall of FAME", not the "Hall of lucky enough to stay healthy and play 20 years". I equate fame with dominance, and in my opinion players who dominated the game for half a decade are considered famous which includes the likes Dave Parker and Greg Luzinski as well.

Using your logic, Johan Santana is a HOFer. Being great is a combination of talent and consistency. Santana was great, but not deserving of Cooperstown.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Galarraga for the Hall! He had a great 5 year stretch, after all. And 399 HR.