O/T, but HOF voting is near

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Counts

"Where do we draw the line then?"

James, you get right to the heart of the debate with that question. The voters in recent years are clearly drawing a different line than they did 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60 years ago, when the floodgates of the HOF were opened to many players who were clearly not as good as the guys we're currently debating. By raising the bar, today's voters are saying that the voters of the past didn't get it right and HOF standards need to be set higher. But by raising the bar, I believe the voters are doing a great disservice to the general public's understanding of baseball history. Many fans will just assume Bill Mazeroski is better than Alan Trammell, even though that clearly is not the case. Others will look at the stats and either be confused by the inconsistencies or be angry at the unfairness. So by raising the bar, I believe the voters are creating more problems than they are solving.

How bad would it really be if we put guys like Andre Dawson, Bert Blylevin, Alan Trammell, Jim Rice, Ron Santo, Lee Smith, Jim Kaat, Goose Gossage and Minnie Minoso in the HOF? The standards of the HOF, set by 70 years of voting, would not be compromised by the inductions, and most fans, especially those who grew up in the 70s, would love it. It would also generate a tremendous amount of good publicity around the country, especially in the cities where the those players played. And who can doubt that baseball needs a little good publicity in the midst of the steroid scandal? Maybe by drawing more attention to baseball's glorious past, people won't worry so much about its present. Ultimately, I believe the induction of more players into the HOF would be good for baseball ...