Lately, when you refer to recent Hall of Fame voting it usually brings up comments like, “if player A is in the discussion, then so should player B”, or “why is this person even on the list?”
In all honesty, the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame is the granddaddy of all the Halls in sports. Its announcement always brings up great debate followed by incessant criticism.
Is entry to the Hall becoming too constrictive or are the rules beginning to loosen?
I happen to be of the strict variety, except when discussing recent candidacy. I believe the benchmarks set many moons ago are in dire need of an adjustment.
Automatic entry was normally reserved by the following statistics:
Batting – 500 HR’s and/or 3,000 hits
Pitching – 300 wins and 3,000 strikeouts
The importance of these numbers has taken a dramatic character hit, especially since the steroid debacle of the late 90’s and early 2000’s. Can 500 remain significant?
It was once a feat accomplished so sparingly that the first 14 of the 25 member fraternity reached the milestone between the 1929 – 1987. The next 11 occurred in a 10 year span, reluctantly changing the feat into a common occurrence.
It is not just the homeruns getting a bad rap as the 3,000 hit club has been taking a beating lately.
With 27 members in the 3,000 hit club, a player who achieves that target has to be awarded that golden ticket, correct?
Will 3,000 hits get Damon into the Hall?
From that group, only three haven’t gained access: Pete Rose (obvious reasons), Rafael Palmeiro (obvious reasons), and Craig Biggio (not yet eligible). There are at least two more nearing the magic number: Derek Jeter, 74 hits shy, and Alex Rodriguez needing 328.
Jeter and A-Rod are obviously worthy of legendary status; we all know that, but what about Johnny Damon? Damon is approximately three years and 429 hits away. Debate is rampant whether Damon can qualify on that feat alone, or if the light-hitting outfielder lacking the tools of other stud players is good enough.
In today’s game, what do you need to be recognized as one of the best ever?
I have been told that if a player is not one of the ten best of all-time at his position, he isn’t the guy. Was Andre Dawson one of the ten best? Jeff Bagwell? Or even Goose Gossage?
If you are lucky enough to be the next member of the National Baseball Hall of Fame, shouldn’t you be enshrined on your first year on the ballot?
What was the difference between Bert Blyleven in 2011 than in 1998? Was Jim Rice’s numbers any less significant in 1995 than they were in 2009?
No doubt, if you are in this discussion you have skills, although “the times they are-a-changin”. The next three-to-five years when the voters have to choose amongst “maybe legends” like Andy Pettitte, Billy Wagner, Jeff Kent and Mike Mussina, we could all witness a new precedent.
Shouldn’t being one of the most dominant players in your decade (or decade plus) count for something? That’s another one you could add to endless list of debate topics. If you say yes to that, then the likes of Larry Walker, Jeff Bagwell, and Sheffield are no-brainers?
Confused? Me too.
- Herzog, Harvey Elected to the Hall; Miller Snubbed
- Hall of Famer Robin Roberts Passes Away
- To the Voters: Let the fans decide the legacy
- Fixing the Flawed Hall of Fame Voting Process
- White Sox Un-Retire Aparicio’s Number
- Powered by Contextual Related Posts
Original Story:
http://fullcountpitch.com/2011/03/14/...
