Domenic

The following is the Mission Statement from the National Baseball Hall of Fame:

Honoring, by enshrinement, those individuals who had exceptional careers, and recognizing others for their significant achievements.

I would like to point out that the emphasis is my own, to avoid any confusion. Now, to the point...

The Hall of Fame's purpose is to enshrine those with exceptional careers. That is the exact language of the Mission Statement. The term 'exceptional' means excellent or superior, as defined by the National Baseball Hall of Fame.

Recognition of significant achievements refers to plaques, displays, and entries within the museum itself. Significant achievements are, generally, record-breaking performances in nearly every facet of the game.

This brings me to my issue with the Hall of Fame, and discussion therein. Only excellent players should be Hall of Famers. A player with a great achievement (e.g. Ripken's streak, Rose's hits record) should be recognized in the museum itself. However, a single accomplishment, regardless of its merits, do not make a player excellent.

That is not to say, however, that all players with records or the like are not worthy. Lou Gehrig's streak was merely icing on the cake for, arguably, the greatest first baseman in the history of the game. Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak, Ted Williams hitting .406, and Ty Cobb's career batting mark similarly add to the greatness of the player.

Pete Rose and Cal Ripken, Jr. played the game 'the right way,' and had strong numbers and impressive records. However, they were not excellent players - they did not dominate the league at any point in time, and neither were the centerpiece of a dominant franchise. To me, this is what makes a Hall of Famer.

I am aware that this sounds pompous, elitist, or what have you. However, it is the Hall of Fame. It should be very, very exclusive - the best of the best, in a way. The museum is wonderful, and exhibits marking outstanding accomplishments are abundant and necessary.

That notwithstanding, I find that the Hall of Fame (and many people discussing a player's candidacy) tend to look for solid consistency - which is not a bad thing, in the least. However, a Hall of Famer should be among the greatest ever - the top one-percent, or five-percent... it needs to be exclusive, honoring those players that were great on the field, regardless of personality, charity, and the like.

__________________
Stats 101