BBWAA vs. Veterans Committee

Does anyone feel that the players elected to the Hall of Fame (at least in terms of twentieth century players) represent a stronger and more accurate depicition of what it means to be a Hall of Famer? I've been sitting here looking at ballots lately?

Considering voting began in 1939 by sportswriters that had been familiar with players at least starting in 1910 wouldn't their assessment of player's on field abilities compared to other players be the best determining factor?

There are simply way too many in the Hall of Fame. Players like Wagner, Cobb, Ruth, etc. clearly were far superior to their competition, but does Edd Roush (sorry to pick on him) really belong in that caliber?

I see that in the 1950s and 60s they voted only every other year for admittance and I'd like to see that go back to it. There seems to be too much of a push to get at least one person in ever year now so that they can hold their weekend event and make money. Tony Perez anyone?

To me, it can't just be about being a good, or better than those around you, but great for all time.

/rant

It's to far gone in my book, To many good not great players already there, To Bad, it isn't the hallowed Hall it could have been.
To much cronyism from the veterns commitee over the years. .

imo you can't undo what's already there, you can't de-hof some of these terrible early picks. anyways the hall was dead to me when jim rice got elected...but look on the bright side our standards are still the highest. have you look at the nba or nfl?

hopefully these old baseball writers will throw their typewriters away and start looking at meaningful metrics so truly deserving guys like tim raines or barry larkin will have a shot. (i think blyleven is a lock soon)

On one level I want to say that veterans committee has worn out its usefulness. Then again, there is an occasional player that might slip through the writers cracks because they hate the guy, etc and you need a back up to cover that flaw.

To me, Rice was a lock. There was no more feared hitter in the game until Bonds came along. If given a choice to ace Schmidt, Brett, Murray or Rice, Rice would have been the last the choice that pitchers wanted to face.

I agree with you that Raines and Larkin belong. If not for Rickey Henderson, we would be talking about Tim Raines being the greatest lead off hitter of all-time. Why Larkin isn't getting much support is beyond me. He was the first of the great fielding, great hitting SS that were so prevalent. He could also a good base stealer. Basically, he was a 5 tool player in the infield.