timconnelly
11-24-2001, 01:30 PM
My position on the Hall of Fame seems to be very similar to Steve's. I think it's important to categorize the players rather than creating one big happy hall where all are equals.
To me, the reasons for this are obvious. You can only honor Hank Aaron as one of the greatest players of all time by placing him in the company of the greatest players of all time. When he is placed in the same company as Lloyd Waner and Rube Marquard, then there has been a failure on the part of the Hall of Fame to sufficiently honor him. There is simply no way around this in my judgment.
But a Hall of Fame that fails to honor anyone below the level of the truly great misses the spirit of this wonderful game. The great thing about baseball is that a Billy Martin, for 7 games, can be every bit as good as a Willie Mays. There are many average and slightly better than average players who have left us with memories that we'll never forget. Honoring them is a vitally important aspect of what I think a Hall of Fame should be.
Steve's concept of honoring players according to the time in which they played and according to the reputation they established is very different than what I would have created. But in looking at it, I think his system is much better than my own because performance becomes a secondary thing over time. What is more important than performance is what a ball player leaves us. The failed defensive play by Bill Buckner remains vivid in our minds many years later: such is the real power of baseball.
So, for my money, being selected to Netshrine's Immortals is the greatest honor going. That Steve's system is still able to honor the Mike Marshalls and Randy Hundleys shows the genius of it.
To me, the reasons for this are obvious. You can only honor Hank Aaron as one of the greatest players of all time by placing him in the company of the greatest players of all time. When he is placed in the same company as Lloyd Waner and Rube Marquard, then there has been a failure on the part of the Hall of Fame to sufficiently honor him. There is simply no way around this in my judgment.
But a Hall of Fame that fails to honor anyone below the level of the truly great misses the spirit of this wonderful game. The great thing about baseball is that a Billy Martin, for 7 games, can be every bit as good as a Willie Mays. There are many average and slightly better than average players who have left us with memories that we'll never forget. Honoring them is a vitally important aspect of what I think a Hall of Fame should be.
Steve's concept of honoring players according to the time in which they played and according to the reputation they established is very different than what I would have created. But in looking at it, I think his system is much better than my own because performance becomes a secondary thing over time. What is more important than performance is what a ball player leaves us. The failed defensive play by Bill Buckner remains vivid in our minds many years later: such is the real power of baseball.
So, for my money, being selected to Netshrine's Immortals is the greatest honor going. That Steve's system is still able to honor the Mike Marshalls and Randy Hundleys shows the genius of it.