We've all be in thread after thread after thread about is ___________ a HOF'er or should ___________ be in the HOF?
Here is my question, in your opinion, are there milestones a player can reach which would give them an automatic entry into the HOF? If so, what are they? I'm assuming 3,000 hits, 500 HR, 300 wins for a pitcher, 3,000 strikeouts for a pitcher, etc.?
Also, what else should be considered? Gold gloves, all-star appearances, batting titles, MVPs, etc.?
Last, do you think each player should ONLY be looked at in perspective to their position and who else played their position and how their numbers stack up that way? Or do you think if you're a HOF'er, then your numbers should speak for themselves?
Here are my thoughts... I think some of the milestones I mentioned above get you into the HOF. I also believe you don't have to have a milestone to get in but you better have other attributes like a MVP or defensive game, all-star appearances, etc. I think another thing to consider is how dominate was that player in their era? I mean, just because you played 20+ seasons and got high career numbers doesn't mean you're a HOF'er.
Last, it really irritates me when people have to compare a player to those who have played their position in the history of the game in order to make an argument for the HOF. Part of me just doesn't like that but I'm not sure why.
At the end of the day, I'm in the camp of it's the Hall of Fame and not Hall of Really Good. If you have to make a case and argue for a player to be considered, then he probably isn't suppose to be in there. Just my two cents.
What do y'all think?