Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
Gooden had extraordinary talent. One could argue Garvey did. Dave Parker at his best was pretty phenomenal. Do you support all of them? Colavito had a phenomenal five year stretch from 58-62 averaging 40 HR and well over 100RBI, does he get your vote? Hodges? George Foster was arguably the best hitter in the game, or close to it, for a few years in the mid-70s. It's a very slippery slope.
|
1st post on Net54.
I'm on the inclusionary side - the HOF should be for those that stood out amongst their peers. Parker was a beast in his time and was considered amongst the best in the game. Without getting into all the statistical detail, that's been done to death on this thread, he's a yes for me. Same as Hernandez.
But I also think the Hall needs a "Legends" or "Immortals" category. Just looking at the list of current HOFers there's a need for it.
Like an earlier poster I want to see and read about the players that were "huge" during the years I watched baseball. Dawson definitely belongs there, but so does Dale Murphy and Doc Gooden.
Having an "Immortals" section would elevate the Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, Wagner and Aaron careers to where they belong. Best of the Best.
I believe the rest of the HOF should be about being the best of baseball during the period the players played - not comparing them to ghosts in past eras.
I also believe Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa and others should be in. Rose and Shoeless too for that matter. Put an asterisk beside their names if you want. That was a good suggestion.
Don't forget to put asterisks next to the names of pitchers who cheated using spitters too though.
I like HOF discussions. Having 2% or so of players getting in seems about right to me as well. It's all in good fun anyways.