[toploader1976]

I'm pretty tough on Baines and Simmons, but they have their merits and deserve some recognition, I just don't think it's the Hall of Fame. One thing that drives me nuts is Player X is the next Player Y. Mike Trout is NOT Willie Mays, Jacob DeGrom is NOT Nolan Ryan. You cannot compare players across generations because opinions will always vary, just as conditions, equipment, color barriers, lights, etc have varied. I'm an old school baseball fan - give me the 1970 Orioles v 1986 Mets everyday, all day. Let me see a 7 game series between the '61 Yankees and the '79 Pirates. The King of Homers to me is and will be Babe Ruth. So trying to convince me that someone from today is better than someone from Musial's time is a tall task.

[jbissell]

I COMPLETELY agree with Toploader on this. Nothing irritates me more than someone trying to start a debate about how Babe Ruth would never be able to hit today's pitching or that today's hitters would tee off on Bob Feller. That is such crap, is patently unfair, and disrespects all of the eras and players of yesterday that made it possible for the players of today to reap the benefits of today's game.

[mmahoney]

If a player is not HOF worthy on his first ballot, what makes him more worthy on future ballots? His statistics have not improved. What only changes is the other people on the ballot and probably to voters if he has "waited" long enough. There should be no limits on voting or how many can go in each year. IF they aren't HOF worthy the first time they are eligible, they are not HOF worthy.

[zeprock]

If a player is not HOF worthy on his first ballot, what makes him more worthy on future ballots? His statistics have not improved. What only changes is the other people on the ballot and probably to voters if he has "waited" long enough. There should be no limits on voting or how many can go in each year. IF they aren't HOF worthy the first time they are eligible, they are not HOF worthy.

Exactly!

To me it's almost like the players are being coddled in some respect. It used to be we had winners and losers. Nowadays they give everyone a certificate of participation so no one will feel bad when in actuality some have what it takes and the rest don't.

[bonds20001]

Obviously I am in favor of Bonds in the HOF. I lived outside of Cooperstown growing up went 20+ times and have taken my boys to the Hall. My dad went to a lot of induction ceremonies and watched the ballgame (used to have a game at Doubleday field with different teams having the day off)..anyway..I love the Hall and if Walker is in..great for him.

Comparing players from the 70s..80s..or earlier with today is impossible. You can bend the stats anyway you want, but it really is not a comparison that makes sense.

Each generation has its own quirks like mound distance, ball composition, bat technology etc..and with the training and technology today, the players are just better at what they do..and they still fail at the plate over 70% of the time AND they are the good hitters!!

Why do some wait years to be selected? The voters/writers make the choices on a grading scale and if you are good and Griffey is in front of you..he is going to get more counted votes...

That being said..I think there should be more cut offs..there is a minimum requirement for service..but should be for other stats..or combos of stats.

Do you think awards count?? Say all-star 8 times gets in when someone else has 4 all-stars does not? And the 4 time player was on a stacked Yankees team when the SS and catcher went every year and he did not because it would not look good. So setting limits is not always the answer.

Last thing: My son thinks the highest integrity of a HOF is hockey..more selective and meaningful..anyone think that??

[jack pfiester]

I'm pretty tough on Baines and Simmons, but they have their merits and deserve some recognition, I just don't think it's the Hall of Fame. One thing that drives me nuts is Player X is the next Player Y. Mike Trout is NOT Willie Mays, Jacob DeGrom is NOT Nolan Ryan. You cannot compare players across generations because opinions will always vary, just as conditions, equipment, color barriers, lights, etc have varied. I'm an old school baseball fan - give me the 1970 Orioles v 1986 Mets everyday, all day. Let me see a 7 game series between the '61 Yankees and the '79 Pirates. The King of Homers to me is and will be Babe Ruth. So trying to convince me that someone from today is better than someone from Musial's time is a tall task.

Have you heard of whatifsports.com?

[crazyforkinsler5]

Here's my take on the entire situation (I'm not a huge Jeter fan, but I enjoyed watching him and other than him I utterly hate the Yankees).

So why does it matter if he didn't get one more vote? He's in the HOF and had a very HOF worthy career. Very classy guy. In 10-15 years, nobody's going to remember he didn't get 100% (without doing research). People will remember his playing career and probably his induction into Cooperstown. Who cares if it wasn't 100%?

[jack pfiester]

I think the reason that the voting percentage is such a big deal is it's the only sport where votes are made public and percentages tabulated on social media. However, I remember when Tom Seaver was elected in 1992 that his record setting percentage was a big deal at the time. It was covered extensively even back then when you had to watch Sportscenter or read the newspaper for sports headlines.

Since there has only been one player ever elected unanimously I think that plays a big part in it since it is so rare.

[waynetalger]

Lastly, once the juicer Pandora's Box opens up, Id like to see renewed consideration for Pete Rose.

If Rose is in so is Shoeless Joe Jackson and Buck Weaver. I also believe if Shoeless Joe and Buck get in Rose should have to wait just as long

[jbissell]

If Rose is in so is Shoeless Joe Jackson and Buck Weaver. I also believe if Shoeless Joe and Buck get in Rose should have to wait just as long

I completely agree. All Im asking is that Rose (And Jackson and Weaver) be considered.