It's too easy to be elected to the HOF. I think peak value should be a very minimal factor to consider, and probably shouldn't matter at all. Here's an example I like to cite: Mark Fidrych had an ERA of 2.47 during his first three seasons. It would not be difficult to make the argument that he was the best starting pitcher in the majors during that time. In spite of this, I don't think there's a reasonable case for him to be inducted. Cumulative performance is what sets the greatest players apart from the rest. Some of the players who have been inducted fall a bit short of the standard I would apply, including my favorite baseball player ever. We'll never know, but if not for one game in October of 1991 and the sympathy factor of a popular player suffering a retinal hemorrhage I think Kirby would have been a borderline inductee. And there are many others who don't truly stand far above the rest. There's also the other side of the coin, where deserving players are not voted in or have to endure a long wait. There's no better example than Blyleven. When he retired he was third all time in strikeouts. Repeating for emphasis: ****ing THIRD! In the history of the game! If a player retired third all time in home runs he would deservingly be close to unanimous on the first ballot, and Blyleven should have been. This type of thing has made me conclude that being elected to the HOF is unimportant. Let the records of the players, managers, and others stand on their own without a highly arbitrary thumbs-up/thumbs-down vote.