Posted by toddcommish on 12/16/2016 10:38:00 AM (view original):
I think a reasonable size for a HOF is one person for every year the league has been around. That doesn't mean you MUST enshrine one player a year, and avoids the mentality of "We HAVE TO make sure someone is elected this year". Maybe have an election once every five years and have a maximum of five people each time. By having longer gaps between elections, you allow more time to evaluate a player against his peers and against the historical context of what he did.
Assuming MLB started in 1885, that would mean 130 people (give or take) should be in the HOF. Maybe 20 or 30 are contributors/coaches (your Connie Macks and Branch Rickeys, for example) and the rest are the players. Right now, there are over 300 people, with over 200 players. So, they're averaging 1.7 players for EVERY YEAR of MLB's existence. Are you telling me that two players retire every year that deserve to be in the HOF in five years?
Is the Hall of Fame a museum, or is it a shrine to the greatest ballplayers? Right now, it's a museum.
I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiment here but I wonder how far away from that we really are?
There are about 140 position players currently in. If you wipe away a lot of the old timers and veterans committee selections that just suck, you're down to 110 or 100. Take away the handful of bad BWAA voted in players and you've got a number in the 90's. There are even fewer pitchers. Knock out the really bad ones and you're south of 50.
That's a pretty slim HOF, especially when ~19,000 people have played major league baseball.
I guess my question is, would that make the Hall of Fame better? Not better in a statistical sense, but more enjoyable or more special?
Yeah, everyone knows there are some selections that don't make any sense, but the Hall of Fame is really for the fans. Is it better if the best players from your childhood or years as a hard core fan aren't able to be elected?
Does it hurt the Hall to have guys like Kirby Puckett and Catfish Hunter and Jim Rice next to Babe Ruth and Greg Maddux?
Or is it better to just accept that some mistakes were made and enjoy the fact that Gwynn and Ripken can be elected in the same year and Pedro and Randy Johnson can be elected in the same year?