Posted By:
jeffI generally feel that inducting long-deceased players (G. Davis, Willis, potentially Reulbach, etc.) is a waste. Nobody gains anything from it besides, as Jeff points out, the second-tier players who then have a claim to standing in a diluted HOF.
But it seems to me the biggest problem with the general direction of most such arguments (as they invariably bring up Bill James's research, which I admire) is that they don't address the fundamental question:
Who is the Hall of Fame supposed to enshrine, anyway?
If we go by the name, it's anybody famous. Once you hit a big World Series grand slam, you're in. Characters--from Bob Uecker to Curt Flood--are in. Perhaps pillars of infamy--whether Buck Weaver or Fred Merkle--are in.
That seems counter-intuitive, so we tilt toward a focus on stats. But obviously that's not what it's about either -- or else no gm, owner or commissioner could be enshrined. And with people like Tony Mullane left out.
So we end up with the mix we have now -- where a combination of notoriety and stats-based dominance reigns (hence Koufax), except for people who have unquestionable stats and not much notoriety (most recent VC inductees fit this bill). But even that qualification doesn't account for, say, Freddie Lindstrom.
Ultimately, I tend to think it just doesn't matter. First time I went to the HOF (I think I was 8 or 9 years old), I remember telling my dad that it didn't really matter who had a plaque or not -- other exhibits made sure that Bill Wambaganss, Bill Mazeroski, even Pete Rose got as much attention in the building labeled Hall of Fame. As if the plaques are some sort of award for distinction, but not really all that important.
(Not that I object to the discussion--I have a bunch of Reulbach cards waiting around for Scott to boost the value of <g>).
Jeff