[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.

The HOF is really just a baseball museum. Maybe it should be split into Tiers. For those of you who believe only guys with long, great, careers that amassed the magical numbers should be in, well then you can just visit the "Top Tier" part of the museum. But for guys like me who don't want to forget the players who dominated the game for a shorter time, well then we can spend our time in the lesser Tiers.

For the PED guys: They should be part of the museum. Sticking with my "Tier" idea, I guess they'd be considered the bottom tier. Maybe they can have the basement.