|
I'll agree with you on that one Ex Greek - Jayson Stark had a really good article on espn.com today about the whole process, and it is a tough one. There have been voting choices made in the past for guys who probably don't deserve to be in the Hall. When it comes down to it, those writers are in a tough spot; no matter who they choose, they're going to get criticism. In my opinion, the guys I mentioned should be in the Hall at some point - if not this year, next year hopefully. It has to be tough for the writers though.
One thing though - yes, the players should be voted in based on how they compare to players already in the Hall. However, the game changes. There are hitters eras and pitchers eras, where batting averages and earned run averages go up and down. The ERAs of guys today don't come close to those of the top pitchers of the late sixties (before the mound was lowered) and the early 1910s (dead ball era). Conversely, the power numbers of today are much greater than those of hitters in those eras. It's important, therefore, to be able to judge the guys in the context of when they played and against their contemporaries.
It's a tough line to draw - do you judge players against guys from all eras, or do you judge mainly within an era? There's good points on both sides of the coin.
Although I think some other guys deserved to be in (as I mentioned earlier), I'll give the voters credit for one thing: I'm happy Ozzie Smith got the high percentage of votes that he did. Nice to see him getting appreciation for the way he played all those years. To get in with over 91% of the vote is a hell of an honor, one he deserved.
Collin
|