This article appears to be written by a man far too intelligent to be a sportwriter. And I mean that as both a compliment and a rip.
The analysis is so philosophical and thought provoking that it is extremely interesting to read. The problem, of course, is that it is also meandering and really doesn't seem to have a clear premise or conclusion.
It also misses the point. The point is that Hall of Fame voting is suspect, but pro football HOF voting appears to have absolutely no legitimacy. Why is Cris Carter out and Shannon Sharpe in? Because the voters like him more. Why is Ray Guy out? Because one guy kept him out for years and years and years because the voter saw a punter in San Francisco in the 1970s who he thought was a better punter. These are the facts. Play on a great title team -- get voted in. Great player and win no titles -- minus 50 points, better hold some NFL records.
Is Roger Maris a Hall of Fame player? Obviously not. His best comparisons: Eric Davis, Dale Murphy and Darrell Strawberry. Hey, these guys were all great players and key cogs on very good teams. Davis and Murphy, it could be argued, were the best player in the game briefly....like Maris.
I don't see any possible way Roger Maris had a HOF career. Should Zoilo Varsalles be in the Hall? Willie Hernandez? Eric Gagne? Orel Hershiser?
The argument made that baseball was "more important" in 1961 is an interesting claim -- certainly it wasn't to black and Hispanic players, judging by major league rosters. Baseball was "more important" because........you could listen to it on the radio? Maybe see Maris hit 6 times during the regular season if you weren't living in New York?
Good effort on the article, but exactly where are we going with this?