If you could take a player or players out of the baseball hall of fame, who would it be?

All voting is subjective. With that in mind there will always be arguments for and against players that are in the hall as well as players who are not but perhaps should be. My personal feelings concerning the current system of election are questionable at best. That's the nature of subjective voting.

Standards for voting have changed over the decades, so what applied then may not necessarily apply today. If I had to name a player or players the two who come to mind are, Phil Rizzuto and Josh Gibson.

Rizzuto was an average ball player who just happened to play on some great Yankee teams. He had one excellent season in 1950 which enabled him to win the AL MVP. The rest of his career was very unremarkable. Defensively his was average. Some will depute that remark but stats don't lie.

As for Josh Gibson, he has clearly benefited from word of mouth comments made strictly by hearsay. Even his plaque in Cooperstown cannot exact his career stats. Those who claimed to have seen Gibson play forgot that there were those who actually kept stats on him. His career was very spotty at best. He played 17 years barn storming across the country playing in less than 600 total games. He competition was that equaled to AA caliber baseball. Defensively he was below average. He couldn't throw and couldn't run. The most telling of all his career stats was his home run total. In 17 seasons he hit a grand total of 147 home runs, never hitting more than 17 in any single season. Gibson is in the hall of fame because over the generations the stories of his so called feats grew and grew and grew until they became legendary, as undeserved as they happen to be. Gibson died at age 35 of a brain tumor. During his life he was a drug addict as well as an alcoholic. Obviously this was a direct collation between the large number of years he played verses the few games in which he actually participated.

Your key word if is very appropriate since there are no do overs lol. Yeah there does appear to be some real clunkers not to list names but a catcher with a .253 average but heck he caught 4 no-no oops actually 3. A guy who hit a HR to win a WS but heck he could field near the best a second. I would estimate you could dump switch or change 20 players and few would notice. Heck it the history of baseball so what if hooper is in and Minosa not. Compared to other HoF baseball does have the best assembly of talent. 1876- 297 in hall with just over 200 actual players we talking a very small elite group. Look at Basketball 313 in since 1959 what joke. If i were Jordan I be screaming bloody murder LMAO.

Final verdict we hope the voters do better who really wants anything but the best in the Hall.

Baseball 297 NHL 238 NBA 313 NFL 267 and baseball has been played at the Major league level decades longer then the other sports.

None. Whatever the measure was in the 30s, 40s, and 50s, we weren't there to know. Those guys are safe. A few of us have the 60s, 70s, covered. They are all right. The rest of the years, I can't think of one. Are you thinking of someone in particular? I really think the Hall is about 30 players short of representing the Hall of Fame properly, so I'd be more apt to put someone in than take someone out.

I would consider myself pretty generous- there are some players I wouldn't 'put in,' but I won't take out...But even 'I' would get rid of:

Tommy McCarthy (I would induct him as a Pioneer, though)

Rick Ferrell

Ray Schalk

Chick Hafey

Jesse Haines

Travis Jackson

Roger Bresnahan

Dave Bancroft

Harry Hooper

I'd also remove Morgan Bulkeley and Bowie Kuhn.

But removing people would be pretty low on my Hall of Fame list of things to do.

Players? None. There's more than a few that don't appear to measure up, but they all played sincerely and with honor. Most of the time anyway. It's not a big deal.

I'd toss an executive -- former commish Bowie Kuhn. His administration was more laughable disaster than solid stewardship. Waste of bronze, making a plaque of him.

----------

Bonus joy reading for anyone who thinks only Mays-class players belong in the Hall or, more immediate, that anyone who played with any sort of pharmaceutical assistance should never darken the doorstep. Be careful what you wish for:

http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/01/06/the-willie-m...

I went and read the article that Chipmaker posted. I still have to say that anyone who used any sort of PED's should be out/not allowed in.

Paul Molitor. If I could "undo" any Hall of Fame induction, it would be his.

I don't believe that DH's belong in the Hall of Fame, and Molitor was mostly that. If you're not good enough to take the field, then you're not good enough to be in the Hall of Fame.

I know that there are plenty of players who have taken DH at bats, and who have extended their careers with DHing, I'm not talking about that. Molitor, Edgar Martinez, Harold Banes and David Ortiz (and many others like them) are dedicated DHs, assigned perfunctory fielding positions with the expectation that they will never have to play them.

Bill Mazeroski.

Gaylord Perry and Roberto Alomar. Perry "spit" on the ball, Alomar spit on the umps.

kirby Puckett

joe morgan

ozzie smith sandy koufax