[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

My belief is that a guy should be elected if he was a dominant player from his era. Otherwise, it is too difficult to compare players from different eras because of the difference in the circumstances. Why should a deadball player be penalized for not hitting homeruns when during that period Ty Cobb led the league once in HRs with 9 and was second another year with 5? I believe that for a pitcher the statistic that is most important to me is his performance compared with the rest of the league during his career -- the size of the disparity between his ERA and that of the league average, wins, wins plus hits per nine innings, etc. Same with hitters. In that vein, it seems hard for me to imagine a HOF without Jim Rice, Andre Dawson and maybe even Steve Garvey. These were the players that ruled baseball in my youth. Can anyone really say with a straight face that Joe Morgan or Ryne Sandberg or Cal Ripkin dominated during their eras anymore than Jim Rice did? Or Dawson? With that in mind, Gil Hodges, Ron Santo and Tony Oliva belong in the Hall. Anytime a guy gets voted to the All Star team 7, 8, 9 times -- he is clearly dominating his league and deserves HOF entry.