Is Baseball's Hall of Fame Overpopulated? ...or

[GaryPassamonte]

I believe George Wright and Candy Cummings are the only players elected as pioneers and this happened in 1937 and 1939. Wright played more than 10 major league seasons and Cummings less. Cummings is the only 19th century player elected that played less than 10 major league seasons. The pioneer category has been lost for players since then, while many executives have been inducted under this category. I believe the HOF has forgotten the pioneer category altogether for players. No 10 years, no consideration.

[novakjr]

As far as executives, I really think it should be solely for executives that helped change and shape the game as it's known today. Obviously, the game is still evolving, but eventually we will get to a point, where there won't be very many highly influential executives/pioneers, and will simply be owners and dude's doing their jobs.. 50-100 years from now, I believe that the ratio's will even themselves out and that a smaller percentage of the total inductees will be executives. But for now, while it may seem high, but we're at an early enough point in the game's history, where there is still a large percentage of executives who have had great influence on the game and are deserving of inclusion..

Honestly, within the last 30 years, how many executives do we really see as having had a significant impact on the game? Not many...Maybe Billy Beane and his moneyball? Maybe Theo? but mostly because he was the youngest GM ever and helped the Sox end the curse. Significant? yes. Impactful though, maybe? Yes, there are some very well known executives(like Steinbrenner), but true impact, game changing executives are becoming few and far between. And I expect that trend to continue..

[johnmh71]

Yes, and because Frankie Frisch pushed to have so many guys elected by the veteran's committee, there should actually be more than the number that is in there based on stats and the era they played in.

[GaryPassamonte]

David- What about the pioneer players of baseball from the pre-professional era? There were probably more changes in the evolution of baseball in the 19th century than any time in the game's history, yet the true pioneer players are virtually unrepresented in the HOF. Why no outcry for their inclusion from the baseball community? It is the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, not the National Professional Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

David- What about the pioneer players of baseball from the pre-professional era? There were probably more changes in the evolution of baseball in the 19th century than any time in the game's history, yet the true pioneer players are virtually unrepresented in the HOF. Why no outcry for their inclusion from the baseball community? It is the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, not the National Professional Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum.

That's basically, what I was getting at. There should probably be more(even more than there currently is) at this point. While I expect there to be significantly less in the future.

The problem with many of the pre-professional pioneers is the lack of proper documentation to really know who was ultimately responsible for what. If evidence appears to really show some new people that had a significant impact on the game, I'm all for their inclusion.. I think Abner is a prime example of a reason to be skeptical of many pre-professional pioneers without definitive evidence. I find it hard to include someone based on speculation..

[Touch'EmAll]

How about keeping the Hall of Fame - no easy entry - only major dominant for their era players - no on the fence players.

Then, another second but different Historical Baseball Museum. To honor the almost dominant yet still all-star caliber players...AND all the other historic figures. You could include Negro players, all the 1800's players who were top notch, managers, administrators, and the like.

Time for baseball to expand to honor its past. Helluva idea, yes?

[steve B]

I'd like to see more pioneers from the 1800's included.
I'm also ok with owners/executives getting in.

Both groups shaped the game, at different times, and in different ways, but the influence is there.

I'm surprised Ruppert wasn't already in. The team he built basically remade baseball in a lot of ways, and in some ways prepared it for broadcast on radio at a time when that became a huge influence in the country. And without that, pro sports itself in the US could be very different.

Steinbrenner I think should be in eventually, his use of free agency made its own changes in the game.

Billy Beane probably should be as well, there just isn't enough history yet to tell just how large of an impact he will have had. But a change away from paying a lot of money for free agents and building competetive teams on a small budget is just as big a change as Steinbrenner paying as much as he did for some players. Maybe in a few years when some information comes out about how the teams that were on the list to be contracted out of the league survived that impact can be measured a bit better. Would we even have the Nationals? Would Baseball have changed to a system like some international sports with a couple "major league" levels sort of like soccer?

The early pioneers shouldn't be held to the arbitrary 10 year limit. There's enough information out there that the influence someone had on the game in the mid 1800's should be something that can be researched, if it's not well known yet.

Steve B

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

I believe George Wright and Candy Cummings are the only players elected as pioneers and this happened in 1937 and 1939. Wright played more than 10 major league seasons and Cummings less. Cummings is the only 19th century player elected that played less than 10 major league seasons. The pioneer category has been lost for players since then, while many executives have been inducted under this category. I believe the HOF has forgotten the pioneer category altogether for players. No 10 years, no consideration.

+1

[triwak]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

Wright played more than 10 major league seasons and Cummings less. Cummings is the only 19th century player elected that played less than 10 major league seasons.

Gary, does the Hall of Fame credit the National Association years (1871-75) as Major League? Actually, does MLB now do that? It seems that is still kind of a gray area, depending on which baseball resource one is referencing. I seem to recall, that a MLB historical committee in 1968 decided NOT to include the NA as a major league. I wonder if that has changed?

[vintagechris]

I used to be one of those that thought too many people get in, but have lightened my stance in recent years. I for one, think it's a shame that a player who may have been the best fielder at his position, like a Keith Hernandez, isn't considered a Hall of Famer.

To me it just shows the emphasis put on hitting. For the record, I was never really a Keith Hernandez fan either. In fact I always pulled against the Cardinals and the Mets, but I think the guy is a HOF'er. I also think Ted Simmons is. Again, this is from a point of view of being less strict with the criteria for determining a HOFer.

[novakjr]

I think Curt Flood deserves some major "pioneer" consideration..

[GaryPassamonte]

Ken- As far as I know the NA is considered a Major league by the HOF.
David- Flood is not given enough attention.

[Clydewally]

I certainly prefer the Baseball Hall to some of the others like basketball (that one is a mish mosh of international players, pioneers, women, college and NBA players and executives which makes it much less interesting to collect).
My main problem with the Cooperstown standard is that it is too often a lifetime achievement award and rewards longevity more than dominance. So you get the Don Suttons and guys like Palmiero who would likely have gotten in but PEDs and ignore the Mattingly's who was considered one of the top players of the 80s (thankfully they made an exception for Koufax).
I am not sure I would put in the short lived greats like Murphy, Maris and Mattingly, but I don't like to see everyone who lasts long enough to amass high totals without really being a dominant player make it either.

[cubsfan-budman]

Originally Posted by Clydewally

I certainly prefer the Baseball Hall to some of the others like basketball (that one is a mish mosh of international players, pioneers, women, college and NBA players and executives which makes it much less interesting to collect).
My main problem with the Cooperstown standard is that it is too often a lifetime achievement award and rewards longevity more than dominance. So you get the Don Suttons and guys like Palmiero who would likely have gotten in but PEDs and ignore the Mattingly's who was considered one of the top players of the 80s (thankfully they made an exception for Koufax).
I am not sure I would put in the short lived greats like Murphy, Maris and Mattingly, but I don't like to see everyone who lasts long enough to amass high totals without really being a dominant player make it either.

All those players you mention got the award they deserve for being the best player for a short amount of time, the MVP award. Doc Gooden would be in the HOF if all it took was the potential for greatness.