HOF Results

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

I’m not against such considerations for more recent players, but I’m not sure “was a really nice guy” (Murphy) of “managed for a while” (Mattingly) quite rise to the level of a Kaat, Minoso, or O’neil’s post-playing-days contributions.

That has nothing to do with what I said, nor was it what I meant (when referencing Murphy's or Mattingly's off-the-field contribution to the game).

As mentioned above, it's about their huge cultural impact on the game. Some may not weigh that as much as Kaat's broadcasting emmy awards, but I believe it's just as important for someone's place in baseball history.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

That has nothing to do with what I said, nor was it what I meant (when referencing Murphy's or Mattingly's off-the-field contribution to the game).

As mentioned above, it's about their huge cultural impact on the game. Some may not weigh that as much as Kaat's broadcasting emmy awards, but I believe it's just as important for someone's place in baseball history.

Sorry if I misunderstood. I think you’re basically referencing the “fame” part of hall of fame.

And I think that does help a case, if they are famous for being one of the best players of “some period of time”, an MVP, big playoff performer, etc.

I think you need to have numbers at or near the HOF standard, but fame can put a borderline candidate over the top.

[Mike D.]

I just had an article on the Golden Days Era ballot get published at Cardlines.com if anyone is interested: https://www.cardlines.com/golden-day...f-famer-cards/