I think the waiting period gives guys a chance to come back and play if they want to. That is why I wouldn't drop it. I think this is especially critical for managers, who can take a few years off and come back. No need to put a guy in early if he goes on to stink it up later. Most of the guys that would get this consideration make it on the first ballot anyway, so I am fine with it.

I really never said I found anything wrong with it, I was just asking if this a vote to skip the waiting period should be used for certain situations.

As stated before, they have for the passing of some of the greats.

 

What special situations, are you proposing/offering for consideration?

As stated before, they have for the passing of some of the greats.

 

What special situations, are you proposing/offering for consideration?

 

I have a limited passing knowledge of Baseball, so I will have to relate it in Hockey(my fav. sport) terms.

 

It would have to be for a Baseball player of the same Caliber as The Great One, Wayne Gretzky. When you can look at them as soon as they retire and know they there may never be someone as good as that person.

I have a limited passing knowledge of Baseball, so I will have to relate it in Hockey(my fav. sport) terms.

 

It would have to be for a Baseball player of the same Caliber as The Great One, Wayne Gretzky. When you can look at them as soon as they retire and know they there may never be someone as good as that person.

Those type of players, would be "1st Ballot HOF" and get in. Gywnn, Ripken and several others, would fall into a comparable discussion but making a waiver to allow immediate induction, is placing the player above the game.

 

Baseball has many outstanding players, some average, some good and some great. The "great ones" (no pun intended) get in but go through the same process, as all the others.

Those type of players, would be "1st Ballot HOF" and get in. Gywnn, Ripken and several others, would fall into a comparable discussion but making a waiver to allow immediate induction, is placing the player above the game.

 

Baseball has many outstanding players, some average, some good and some great. The "great ones" (no pun intended) get in but go through the same process, as all the others.

 

I can see where your coming from, and that's a reasonable argument. I guess I just like the way hockey does it better. But I am biased...

 

If I can ask Strike, Who do you think would be baseball's one equivalent to our Great One?

Aren't you allowed to only be on the ballot so many times in MLB before you can no longer get in? Strict standards and I like them. Just let Pete in.

I can see where your coming from, and that's a reasonable argument. I guess I just like the way hockey does it better. But I am biased...

 

If I can ask Strike, Who do you think would be baseball's one equivalent to our Great One?

Wow, there are so many great HOF's players and some, I've never seen but read about.

 

Instantly, Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Lou Gehrig, Bob Gibson and many others come to mind. Had Pete Rose, not taken the darken path, he would be much ballyhooed, in a positive manner.

Wow, there are so many great HOF's players and some, I've never seen but read about.

 

Instantly, Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Lou Gehrig, Bob Gibson and many others come to mind. Had Pete Rose, not taken the darken path, he would be much ballyhooed, in a positive manner.

 

But is there one they you can say was the best, above all else?

Aren't you allowed to only be on the ballot so many times in MLB before you can no longer get in? Strict standards and I like them. Just let Pete in.

I'm not sure if there is a maximum amount of time, but more the 20 year rule, since being active. The veterans committee, can recommend under differing guidelines.

 

But is there one they you can say was the best, above all else?

No. I can't say a Pitcher, was better than a OF, or a Catcher was better than a IF. Each had to rely on the other 8, to have success.

 

The best-of-the-best debate, would be just that....a debate.

I'm not sure if there is a maximum amount of time, but more the 20 year rule, since being active. The veterans committee, can recommend under differing guidelines.

 

No. I can't say a Pitcher, was better than a OF, or a Catcher was better than a IF. Each had to rely on the other 8, to have success.

 

The best-of-the-best debate, would be just that....a debate.

 

Thanks, you seem to know your baseball. I like seeing how sports stack up against each other...