HOF voting

It's kind of funny that someone would even try to argue this point, the numbers alone make your debate embarrassing. The player pool is literally 10,000 (or more) times bigger. I have to question why some hold on to this belief that the pitchers Ruth homered off of could come close to the pitchers today. What makes someone ignore such facts and hold onto such beliefs? White privilege is evident in this line of dream thinking.

All you can do is compare players vs the competition of their era. I agree that if you put Babe Ruth in a time machine and dropped him into 2016 he'd be blown away by the pitching. HOWEVER, if the same Babe Ruth had been born in , say , 1994, with modern diet and conditioning, he'd be among the best players today if not the best.

That is possible but far from proven.... I just think it is quite telling how some of the old white guys get so riled up by this most logical thinking.

And if you put Miguel Cabrera in a time machine he would put up softball numbers versus 1890s- 1940s pitching...

So why do a astronomically larger portion of old time players from the all white eras get into the Hall of Fame versus players from much better eras (back to Valen's post)?

There are other even more concrete facts that can figure into this debate. Just look at how many errors were made in the all white eras, compared with today, and often times with a lot less lively ball. To debate this point that the players are much better today is pure silliness.

Someone should ask Doug Glanville what he thinks.

And if you put Miguel Cabrera in a time machine he would put up softball numbers versus 1890s- 1940s pitching...

So why do a astronomically larger portion of old time players from the all white eras get into the Hall of Fame versus players from much better eras (back to Valen's post)?

The Cabrera argument simply agrees with what I just said. As for the HOF, I think Rburgh made a great point , there are way too many writers voting and therefor it is way to difficult to get 75 percent of the vote.

That is possible but far from proven.... I just think it is quite telling how some of the old white guys get so riled up by this most logical thinking.

The only one getting "riled up" is you..since you went off your meds.

That argument can go for negro league players too. They never faced white players.

Mantle, Mays, and Aaron never faced top Japanese players.

We should not acknowledge Barry Bonds numbers not because of steroids, but because he never faced the best Japanese and Cuban talent available.

If in 2050 we have all the best players in the world playing in the big leagues then I must say that if 2001 Barry Bonds took a time machine to 2050 then he would bat .220 and hit 20 homers.

It is impossible to compare eras - the game and the players have changed through the years. Players in the deadball era made many errors for example, but the equipment was not the same and speed was much more prevalent, putting constant pressure on the fielders. You have players who played in the steroid era, smaller stadiums, better training, video, coaching..whose numbers have been aided as a by-product of the evolution of the game but conversely they also batted against improved bullpens, a larger pool of players, pitchers that routinely throw heat and in-depth scouting reports. In other words, it's a wash comparing eras. There are many players who probably should not be in, as voted in by various veterans committees. Sabermetrics has given us an idea of where some of the HOF players ranked among their peers and there are several who should not be in. The current HOF voting is flawed - there are certain players like Maddux, Griffey, Pedro Martinez who are no brainers as belonging to that exclusive club and really, that is the way it should be, but thats too easy to elect the best of the best. The problem with the BBWAA is measuring the contributions of borderline players and the inconsistent nature of their voting - a weighted system with former players voting should be implemented (50% writers/50% former players) - they know better than anyone who should be in there. Jack Morris was considered money in big games and he's not in, but Bert Blyleven is in? People are talking about Raines, but Bernie Williams was a gold glove CF and a middle of the order mainstay for a dynasty team and he drops off after one ballot? Kirby Puckett is in but not Mattingly, whose career was also cut short? Look at their numbers-real close. Jim Rice is in but not Dave Parker, who was a better all-around player than Rice ever was and did not play half his games at Fenway? Players, coaches, managers should vote.

If Kershaw, Trout, Harper, etc had the dumb luck of being born 100 years ago Radagast would be discriminating against them too as not being worthy of AA based on when they were born and their skin color.

The HOF is an honor for players who were among the best players of whenever it is that they played. Nowhere does it say that the criteria should be that they were the best of their day and would be the best of 50, 100, 200, 300 years later too.

Most young men in Asia, Africa, Europe, Middle East, South America, Pacific Islands and most places in the world do not grow up playing baseball. I guess we should discount all of today's players because they didn't get to compete against the untapped potential of those young men too. What a ridiculous argument.

Exactly. In 100 years every reliever will throw 100. The HOF is about how they stacked up against their peers. Not how they would play against the future.