I've always felt there should be objective standards for the Hall of Fame. Win 300 games? You're in. Career .350 Batting Average? You're in. Hold or broke an important record? You're in. Sure, that means Bonds and Rose would have to be in--but right now the system is broken.
Biggio isn't the first person (I think that was Nellie Fox) to come that close, but at least it's only his second year of eligibility and he should get in next time.
I prefer Bill James's standard, by which (for instance) he looks at pitchers and sees that no pitcher with more than 283 wins (Jim Kaat; Tommy John had 288) is NOT in the Hall of Fame. Yet few argued when Don Drysdale (209 wins) was elected. But then he pitched fr a glamor team his whole career, among other reasons.
I agree with Deb - the system is broken. Also, the voting writers are so conscious of steroid and other "cheats" now that they run away from anyone who might have issues while possibly over-embracing anyone who is considered squeaky clean.
Of course, by that standard Biggo should have been elected....
I didn't mean that players should only be able to get into the HoF if they reached specific benchmarks--there should always be room for subjectivity--but that EVERY player who meets those benchmarks should be in without bothering with votes. As I recall, Biggio had 3000 hits and, by the "benchmark" standard, should definitely be in the HoF.
I got your meaning, Deb. And Biggio should be in by just about any standard. There was a lot more to him than the 3000 hits. But some of the writers who vote are morons. That's the politest word I can think of.
5 comments:
I've always felt there should be objective standards for the Hall of Fame. Win 300 games? You're in. Career .350 Batting Average? You're in. Hold or broke an important record? You're in. Sure, that means Bonds and Rose would have to be in--but right now the system is broken.
Biggio isn't the first person (I think that was Nellie Fox) to come that close, but at least it's only his second year of eligibility and he should get in next time.
I prefer Bill James's standard, by which (for instance) he looks at pitchers and sees that no pitcher with more than 283 wins (Jim Kaat; Tommy John had 288) is NOT in the Hall of Fame. Yet few argued when Don Drysdale (209 wins) was elected. But then he pitched fr a glamor team his whole career, among other reasons.
I agree with Deb - the system is broken. Also, the voting writers are so conscious of steroid and other "cheats" now that they run away from anyone who might have issues while possibly over-embracing anyone who is considered squeaky clean.
Of course, by that standard Biggo should have been elected....
Jeff
Definitely broken. Some writers sent in blank ballots. How stupid is that?
I didn't mean that players should only be able to get into the HoF if they reached specific benchmarks--there should always be room for subjectivity--but that EVERY player who meets those benchmarks should be in without bothering with votes. As I recall, Biggio had 3000 hits and, by the "benchmark" standard, should definitely be in the HoF.
/If I ruled the world...
I got your meaning, Deb. And Biggio should be in by just about any standard. There was a lot more to him than the 3000 hits. But some of the writers who vote are morons. That's the politest word I can think of.
Post a Comment