Who will be the next unanimous elected Baseball HOFer?

BLUEJAYWAY · January 24, 2019 10:49PM

Now that a precedent has been established. Jeter? And will it become more commonplace?

Justacommeman · January 24, 2019 11:10PM

Yes on Jeter

m

Coinstartled · January 25, 2019 1:38AM

Other than to get the forum through the lag to the Super Bowl, not sure why unanimous is important.

ernie11 · January 25, 2019 2:33AM

@Coinstartled said:
Other than to get the forum through the lag to the Super Bowl, not sure why unanimous is important.

Agree. We should concentrate on the vast majority who DO vote for a HOF'er, not the exceptions. That being said, I am still astounded that 425 baseball writers would ever agree on anything. This may be the only time this happens - next year with Jeter will be the test, then later with Pujols.

PatsGuy5000 · January 25, 2019 3:23AM

Derek Jeter

craig44 · January 25, 2019 6:26AM

now that the barrier has been broken, I think it will become more common. Imagine if Ruth or Mantle or another star from the past had broken the 100% barrier how many unanimous hofers we would have today. probably at least a dozen. I am sure jeter will be unanimous.

thisistheshow · January 25, 2019 6:52AM

Jeter, and yes-they broke the seal.

bronco2078 · January 25, 2019 7:07AM

Now that the barrier has been broken , who will be the first to get 110% of the vote?

LarkinCollector · January 25, 2019 7:17AM

Whoever's running in LA.

JoeBanzai · January 25, 2019 7:18AM

Didn't care before, don't care now.

1951WheatiesPremium · January 25, 2019 10:36AM

My two cents?

The writer who intended to leave Mariano Rivera off was shamed into either voting for him or abstaining from voting (can’t remember which); yet another great example of how sport parallels life. It’s a great illustration of what our society is turning into in the sense that Rivera wasn’t really unanimous but thanks to the threat of an internet/Twitter/social media/media in general good old fashioned burning at the stake (metaphorically, for a little while longer it seems) the writer backed down.

Public shaming is a huge part of culture (once again). Usually a confluence of a rush to judgement, a lack of intelligence and no earthly idea of what actual diversity of opinion means. Pervasive way to think these days and baseball is no exception.

‘I don’t agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it’ in America has somehow morphed into ‘There is only one way to think and those that disagree should be shamed and flamed.’

I think I’ll re-read The Crucible this weekend...

orioles93 · January 25, 2019 11:13AM

The point is, if you have a vote, and you don’t vote for a player like Rivera, then you have no business having a vote. Petty reasons and bias should be left at the door if you are lucky enough to get to vote. It’s amazing to me that people have an issue with this. All these years people are complaining, “how does someone not vote for Griffey, or Ripken, or Maddux, or Seaver.” And they complain about that. And now we finally seem to have gotten over that hurdle and now the same people are complaining about exactly what they wanted before, a great player not being left off ballots.

1951WheatiesPremium · January 25, 2019 1:11PM

I am a MASSIVE fan of Mariano Rivera. Mo was my favorite Yankee from those teams and he’s well deserving of enshrinement. Even 100%, if you ask me.

However, I also believe that attacking the voice of dissent (with a crowd) is despicable.

There are MANY plausible reasons to leave him off the ballot. For a long time, there were some writers submitted one name. There are no voting rules, per se, of how a ballot needs to be filled out.

bronco2078 · January 25, 2019 1:54PM

@1951WheatiesPremium said:
I am a MASSIVE fan of Mariano Rivera. Mo was my favorite Yankee from those teams and he’s well deserving of enshrinement. Even 100%, if you ask me.

However, I also believe that attacking the voice of dissent (with a crowd) is despicable.

There are MANY plausible reasons to leave him off the ballot. For a long time, there were some writers submitted one name. There are no voting rules, per se, of how a ballot needs to be filled out.

There was never one plausible reason to set up HOF voting the way they did other than to rig who gets in or does not get in. It's not logical or transparent who gets on the ballot or who gets to vote .

JoeBanzai · January 25, 2019 2:02PM

@orioles93 said:
The point is, if you have a vote, and you don’t vote for a player like Rivera, then you have no business having a vote. Petty reasons and bias should be left at the door if you are lucky enough to get to vote. It’s amazing to me that people have an issue with this. All these years people are complaining, “how does someone not vote for Griffey, or Ripken, or Maddux, or Seaver.” And they complain about that. And now we finally seem to have gotten over that hurdle and now the same people are complaining about exactly what they wanted before, a great player not being left off ballots.

No, the real point is you have a right to vote for whoever you want to and shouldn't have to explain your reasons if you don't want to.

That's the world I grew up in. Your world frightens and confuses me.

orioles93 · January 25, 2019 2:56PM

Yeah you have the right to vote for whoever you want to. That doesn’t mean you have to act like a complete idiot. You can go ahead and not vote for Jeter and give me one hundred reasons why you didn’t, you’re still wrong. It sounds like the world you grew up in was full of old men making bad decisions. A world where obvious hall of famers get all the votes sounds a lot less frightening and confusing than a world where some 90 year old nimrod who hasn’t written or covered baseball since the 30s doesn’t vote for Tom Seaver.

JoeBanzai · January 25, 2019 3:21PM

At least I don't try to shove my opinions down someone's throat. Calling them names is rather childish. I'll take old men over spoiled brats anytime.

Two words you might want to look up nimrod and respect.

Justacommeman · January 25, 2019 3:46PM

@JoeBanzai said:
At least I don't try to shove my opinions down someone's throat. Calling them names is rather childish. I'll take old men over spoiled brats anytime.

Two words you might want to look up nimrod and respect.

Joe, Joe, Joe don’t make me pull up your posts where you literally called people names. It was like two days ago

m

galaxy27 · January 25, 2019 4:14PM

really? this thread too? what is with everyone on this glorious friday?

i would chill the hell out if i were you guys. CU instituted a new form of punishment and i guarantee you want no part of it. trust me, you'll be crying for a mod to come along, bop you on the melon and put you to sleep after you're subjected

https://www.rankingball.io/

dallasactuary · January 25, 2019 4:31PM

@orioles93 said:
The point is, if you have a vote, and you don’t vote for a player like Rivera, then you have no business having a vote.

I agree with the formulation, I just think Rivera was a damn strange player to finally get to 100% because I do think a reasonable person could decide that 1,200 innings just isn't HOF-worthy. But substitute Mantle, Mays, Aaron, etc. and I agree that pulling voting privileges from the one's who didn't vote for them would have sent a clear and needed message.

Of greater importance, though, is pulling voting privileges from writers who vote for Jim RIce or other players miles below HOF worthiness. The greatest players all get in quickly anyway, so not voting for Babe Ruth or Willie Mays doesn't actually change anything. But voting for sub-par players does change the HOF, for the worse, and there's no way to fix it once the damage is done. Getting into a HOF where "stat nerds" had veto power would be, and remain, an honor; getting into the actual HOF is becoming more and more a random event.

JoeBanzai · January 25, 2019 4:38PM

@Justacommeman said:

@JoeBanzai said:
At least I don't try to shove my opinions down someone's throat. Calling them names is rather childish. I'll take old men over spoiled brats anytime.

Two words you might want to look up nimrod and respect.

Joe, Joe, Joe don’t make me pull up your posts where you literally called people names. It was like two days ago

m

I really TRY to avoid it.

Skin and I have seemed to patch things up. Hopefully those days are behind us.

I even apologized!

I wasn't calling orioles93 a spoiled brat AT ALL. So sorry if you took it that way O93. I also didn't take it that he was calling me a complete idiot. I THINK we were comparing/contrasting old school thinking vs. the new way things are done.

I do think there are more than a few misunderstandings here because you often aren't sure of the tone the person is using when it's words on a page. Other times it is pretty clear behavior could be better.

orioles93 · January 25, 2019 6:10PM

I wasn't calling orioles93 a spoiled brat AT ALL. So sorry if you took it that way O93. I also didn't take it that he was calling me a complete idiot. I THINK we were comparing/contrasting old school thinking vs. the new way things are done.

>

This. Wasn’t saying that about you, just voters in general.

1951WheatiesPremium · January 25, 2019 6:23PM

@JoeBanzai said:

@orioles93 said:
The point is, if you have a vote, and you don’t vote for a player like Rivera, then you have no business having a vote. Petty reasons and bias should be left at the door if you are lucky enough to get to vote. It’s amazing to me that people have an issue with this. All these years people are complaining, “how does someone not vote for Griffey, or Ripken, or Maddux, or Seaver.” And they complain about that. And now we finally seem to have gotten over that hurdle and now the same people are complaining about exactly what they wanted before, a great player not being left off ballots.

No, the real point is you have a right to vote for whoever you want to and shouldn't have to explain your reasons if you don't want to.

That's the world I grew up in. Your world frightens and confuses me.

Uncle Leo or Key Rock?

(I’m keeping track.)

JoeBanzai · January 25, 2019 8:24PM

@orioles93 said:

I wasn't calling orioles93 a spoiled brat AT ALL. So sorry if you took it that way O93. I also didn't take it that he was calling me a complete idiot. I THINK we were comparing/contrasting old school thinking vs. the new way things are done.

>

This. Wasn’t saying that about you, just voters in general.

I think the voters are pretty arrogant when (in the past, as of this year) they thought that if anyone got voted in unanimously, that would be them declaring that player some kind of GOAT.

I haven't thought much of them when it took until 1984 for Killebrew to get elected. He was #5 at the time in career home runs.

Carew waltzes in on first ballot. Carew is certainly a HOFer, but I figured then and there they didn't think like I did. > @1951WheatiesPremium said:

@JoeBanzai said:

@orioles93 said:
The point is, if you have a vote, and you don’t vote for a player like Rivera, then you have no business having a vote. Petty reasons and bias should be left at the door if you are lucky enough to get to vote. It’s amazing to me that people have an issue with this. All these years people are complaining, “how does someone not vote for Griffey, or Ripken, or Maddux, or Seaver.” And they complain about that. And now we finally seem to have gotten over that hurdle and now the same people are complaining about exactly what they wanted before, a great player not being left off ballots.

No, the real point is you have a right to vote for whoever you want to and shouldn't have to explain your reasons if you don't want to.

That's the world I grew up in. Your world frightens and confuses me.

Uncle Leo or Key Rock?

(I’m keeping track.)

Keyrock

dallasactuary · January 25, 2019 8:45PM

@JoeBanzai said:
I haven't thought much of them when it took until 1984 for Killebrew to get elected. He was #5 at the time in career home runs.

Carew waltzes in on first ballot. Carew is certainly a HOFer, but I figured then and there they didn't think like I did.

As I learned only recently in a different thread, Carew was a better "hitter" than Killebrew. But that's not the amazing part; the amazing part is that he was also a better "hitter" than Hank Aaron, Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle (although not, of course, as good a "hitter" as Heinie Manush).

JRR300 · January 27, 2019 11:01AM

Just a thought.......did the fact that Rivera got voted in unanimously because he's from NY? If that extra press and exposure carries some weight, the Jeter definitely gets in first round with a unanimous vote. We'll see next year if the panel who votes has had a change in their long time approach that no on is worthy of a unanimous election into the Hall

Justacommeman · January 27, 2019 11:53AM

@JRR300 said:
Just a thought.......did the fact that Rivera got voted in unanimously because he's from NY? If that extra press and exposure carries some weight, the Jeter definitely gets in first round with a unanimous vote. We'll see next year if the panel who votes has had a change in their long time approach that no on is worthy of a unanimous election into the Hall

Double edged sword. A lot of people resent NY and have an anti bias

m

dallasactuary · January 27, 2019 12:05PM

@Justacommeman said:

@JRR300 said:
Just a thought.......did the fact that Rivera got voted in unanimously because he's from NY? If that extra press and exposure carries some weight, the Jeter definitely gets in first round with a unanimous vote. We'll see next year if the panel who votes has had a change in their long time approach that no on is worthy of a unanimous election into the Hall

Double edged sword. A lot of people resent NY and have an anti basis

I looked at this in some detail once - there's probably a monster thread on it somewhere - and historically there doesn't appear to be any NY bias, pro or con. There is, though, an enormous bias towards players on great teams, and since the Yankees are the historically greatest team, that bias results in more Yankees in the HOF. So, yes, Rivera benefited from being a Yankee. He would have been the same pitcher on a bad team, but he wouldn't have been in the postseason very often and there's no chance at all that he would have been a unanimous choice for the HOF.

1951WheatiesPremium · January 27, 2019 12:14PM

@dallasactuary said:

@Justacommeman said:

@JRR300 said:
Just a thought.......did the fact that Rivera got voted in unanimously because he's from NY? If that extra press and exposure carries some weight, the Jeter definitely gets in first round with a unanimous vote. We'll see next year if the panel who votes has had a change in their long time approach that no on is worthy of a unanimous election into the Hall

Double edged sword. A lot of people resent NY and have an anti basis

I looked at this in some detail once - there's probably a monster thread on it somewhere - and historically there doesn't appear to be any NY bias, pro or con. There is, though, an enormous bias towards players on great teams, and since the Yankees are the historically greatest team, that bias results in more Yankees in the HOF. So, yes, Rivera benefited from being a Yankee. He would have been the same pitcher on a bad team, but he wouldn't have been in the postseason very often and there's no chance at all that he would have been a unanimous choice for the HOF.

>

I still wonder what might have been if he had been a starter - with the Yanks or elsewhere. I am aware he pitched a small amount of innings as a starter with middling success (at best) but he hadn’t even discovered his full arsenal at the time. The reigning NL Cy Young Award winner took a while to fully develop, too, as an example...

Truth be told, for where he was drafted and where he was career wise when he was first injured in the minors, he’s lucky to have even been a Yankee after that and be able to keep playing pro ball. Most organizations cut bait with guys in Mo’s shoes.

Remarkable story.

JRR300 · January 27, 2019 4:40PM

You're exactly right. There's hardly any organization that would stick with a player that long. Just another page in his remarkable story.

JoeBanzai · January 27, 2019 4:48PM

@dallasactuary said:

@JoeBanzai said:
I haven't thought much of them when it took until 1984 for Killebrew to get elected. He was #5 at the time in career home runs.

Carew waltzes in on first ballot. Carew is certainly a HOFer, but I figured then and there they didn't think like I did.

As I learned only recently in a different thread, Carew was a better "hitter" than Killebrew. But that's not the amazing part; the amazing part is that he was also a better "hitter" than Hank Aaron, Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle (although not, of course, as good a "hitter" as Heinie Manush).

OH! I am sorry then, I didn't read that thread, or I "misremembered" it.

BLUEJAYWAY · January 28, 2019 1:51PM

@Coinstartled said:
Other than to get the forum through the lag to the Super Bowl, not sure why unanimous is important.

Maybe not that important to some and in the grand scheme of things is not that important. But since it had never been done in the history of HOF voting, that in itself is at least interesting. And worthry of some discussion. Especially with the previous talent that never received 100%.

Coinstartled · January 28, 2019 3:09PM

@BLUEJAYWAY said:

@Coinstartled said:
Other than to get the forum through the lag to the Super Bowl, not sure why unanimous is important.

Maybe not that important to some and in the grand scheme of things is not that important. But since it had never been done in the history of HOF voting, that in itself is at least interesting. And worthry of some discussion. Especially with the previous talent that never received 100%.

Sports writers are a quirky lot. more so now as their newspapers are folding.

Who will be the next unanimous elected Baseball HOFer?

Comments