<< <i>Maddux has been left off a ballot, so no 100% for him... >>
Just read the guy who left him off did so because he won't vote for any players in the steroid era. Idiotic and further proof the hall is worthless. >>
That is rich. You disagree with one voter, so the HOF is worthless. That is like saying these boards are useless because you post here.
<< <i>Maddux has been left off a ballot, so no 100% for him... >>
Just read the guy who left him off did so because he won't vote for any players in the steroid era. Idiotic and further proof the hall is worthless. >>
That is rich. You disagree with one voter, so the HOF is worthless. That is like saying these boards are useless because you post here. >>
Unlike these boards, the HoF is actually worth a damn. Leaving a guy off and not voting for anyone from an entire era? Then turn in your vote now, sir.
<< <i>Maybe so but for a catcher defensive ability and being able to gun down runners is more important. >>
And how did you come to that conclusion, exactly?
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Did anybody actually think Maddux was going to get 100% of the vote? Wasn't a chance, anyway. >>
He was a great pitcher but to be the first unanimous inductee, ever? Not so much..
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>Maddux has been left off a ballot, so no 100% for him... >>
Just read the guy who left him off did so because he won't vote for any players in the steroid era. Idiotic and further proof the hall is worthless. >>
That is rich. You disagree with one voter, so the HOF is worthless. That is like saying these boards are useless because you post here. >>
Unlike these boards, the HoF is actually worth a damn. Leaving a guy off and not voting for anyone from an entire era? Then turn in your vote now, sir. >>
Apparently, he will...sort of. I heard he will abstain from voting in subsequent years.
<< <i>Did anybody actually think Maddux was going to get 100% of the vote? Wasn't a chance, anyway. >>
He was a great pitcher but to be the first unanimous inductee, ever? Not so much.. >>
So he shouldn't be unanimous because...there hasn't been one before? That's as idiotic a 'reasoning' as the guy who didn't vote for him refusing to vote for anyone in the steroid era.
<< <i>Did anybody actually think Maddux was going to get 100% of the vote? Wasn't a chance, anyway. >>
He was a great pitcher but to be the first unanimous inductee, ever? Not so much.. >>
So he shouldn't be unanimous because...there hasn't been one before? That's as idiotic a 'reasoning' as the guy who didn't vote for him refusing to vote for anyone in the steroid era. >>
There wasn't a chance because Maddux wasn't the best pitcher of all time. Go back a few decades and call the voters idiots that didn't unanimously vote in Seaver, Walter Johnson, Mathewson, etc. Who knows, maybe one of the 'idiots' that won't be voting for Maddux (and there will be more than one) will vote for Edgar Martinez. Will he still be an idiot in your mind?
You should start the predictable thread on the idiots that don't unanimously vote in Pedro when he's eligible...that won't happen, either. It's not an exact science.
<< <i> There wasn't a chance because Maddux wasn't the best pitcher of all time. >>
I never said he was the best pitcher of all time. But he is a no-doubt-about-it Hall of Famer, and yes, anyone who doesn't vote for him is (a) an idiot, and (b) deserves to have their vote taken away.
<< <i>Go back a few decades and call the voters idiots that didn't unanimously vote in Seaver, Walter Johnson, Mathewson, etc. >>
They are idiots, too. Trying to keep up this 'tradition' of not making anyone a 100%, unanimous Hall of Famer is pathetic and yes, idiotic.
<< <i>Who knows, maybe one of the 'idiots' that won't be voting for Maddux (and there will be more than one) will vote for Edgar Martinez. Will he still be an idiot in your mind? >>
No, because unlike Maddux, I can understand the argument for voting against Martinez (didn't play defense for one). When your only reason not to vote for Maddux is you aren't going to vote for anyone from the steroid era? Then you're an idiot and you don't deserve the extreme priviledge of voting for the Hall of Fame.
<< <i>You should start the predictable thread on the idiots that don't unanimously vote in Pedro when he's eligible...that won't happen, either. It's not an exact science. >>
In the cases of Maddux and Pedro, it doesn't have to be an exact science. Both are Hall of Famers. Both are, without question, and baseball fans dare to ask why their sport is dying? This is not helping things (that and trying to turn their back on an entire era of players, but that's another topic).
What is the problem with Biggio not getting in on the first ballot? All other eligible players since 1962 with 3000 hits got in on the first ballot (other than that pointing finger "I did not take 'roids but really did" guy) so as long as Biggio didn't take 'roids (and I see no serious evidence of him or Bagwell doing so) then what's the problem?
I will say it'd be neat for two "Killer B's" to go in together. Not to mention two of the world famous guys on the 90s Braves rotation and the 2nd best player of the 1990s joining them.
<< <i>So he won't be voting in the future? Does that mean Griffey becomes the first unanimous inductee in a class where he is the only inductee? >>
If he's provided a ballot but doesn't vote, then no one will get 100% because it's based upon available votes. He would have to outright forfeit his voting privileges.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Is the non participating voter suspicious that Maddux may have used PED'S, or does he just figure the drug era is so statistically tainted to not be worthy of any new hall members?
<< <i>Is the non participating voter suspicious that Maddux may have used PED'S, or does he just figure the drug era is so statistically tainted to not be worthy of any new hall members? >>
I assume he meant the latter for those who played during the midish 90's to late '00s.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
When Frank Thomas is elected today...he'll open the door for other roiders. This should be a banner day for the folks that believe that PED users should still be in.
Thomas should get in because he wasn't an a-hole like fellow roiders Bonds and Clemens. Although, Sosa smiled a lot too, so I may need to re-think my criteria.
<< <i>Idiotic and further proof the hall is worthless. >>
Unlike these boards, the HoF is actually worth a damn >>
Did everyone else miss how truly awesome this is?
Trying to make one point, then immediately trying to say the exact opposite thing
Guess this counts as proof that even you don't believe the ridiculous drivel you write >>
Beginning to like 1985fan. The man is passionate about sports and like most of us, truly frustrated. I was a manic baseball fan up until the early 1990's when Ernie Harwell was fired by the Tigers. I was shaken from a 30 year stupor of believing that the major leagues had any interest in the general public, other than the quality and depths of their wallets.
I still observe sports, but from the perspective of one who enjoys the competition, rather than a dedication to a single player or team.
<< <i>Is the non participating voter suspicious that Maddux may have used PED'S, or does he just figure the drug era is so statistically tainted to not be worthy of any new hall members? >>
To me, he's obviously doing it to draw attention to himself. He knew Maddux would get in on a first ballot, so he 'dramatically' left off Maddux, claims that he can't in good conscience vote for anyone from that era (despite Morris himself playing a good number of years in that very same timeframe), and is yapping about PEDs as if he suddenly developed a conscience.
This clown's voting history is proof that he should not have a vote, and it should be rescinded immediately. This year, he voted only for Jack Morris, last year, he voted for Morris and Lee Smith. In 2011? He voted for Blyleven and Smith, but no Morris. Huh? And he's already on record as saying he won't vote for Mariano Rivera when his eligibility arrives. He's saying he won't vote for ANYONE from here on out.
Baseball needs to step in, do the right thing, and strip this guy's vote.
I'm not sold on Biggio but he'll get in and that's fine. But he was a clear step below the three guys who DID get in this year and that makes it a bit more special. These three were no-brainers for sure.
<< <i>I'm not sold on Biggio but he'll get in and that's fine. But he was a clear step below the three guys who DID get in this year and that makes it a bit more special. These three were no-brainers for sure. >>
Look at Biggio this way. In 145 years of Major League Baseball, only 20 players have more hits than Biggio. That means, that out of over 17,000 players all time, he was 21st in hits all time. If that's not hall of fame, then I don't know what is.
What I Collect:
PSA HOF Baseball Postwar Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 80.51% Complete)
PSA Pro Football HOF Rookie Players Set Registry- (Currently 19.80% Complete)
PSA Basketball HOF Players Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 6.02% Complete)
I'm still confused as to why Frank Thomas is given the benefit of the doubt. A giant man who hit 521 HRs when everyone is under suspicion? After having his body break down in his mid-30s, he miraculously recovers to hit 38 HRs at age 38?
Oh wait, but he's been very outspoken against PED use throughout his career (including when he put on 35 lbs in one offseason). He reminds me of GOP politicians who consistently vote against any and all legislation that can be seen as pro-gay, and then it turns out that they have been closet cases their entire lives.
<< <i>I'm still confused as to why Frank Thomas is given the benefit of the doubt. A giant man who hit 521 HRs when everyone is under suspicion? After having his body break down in his mid-30s, he miraculously recovers to hit 38 HRs at age 38? >>
He passed drug tests for four years. He either stopped using drugs when the new drug policy was implemented or the drug policy is unenforceable. In either case he is being held to the same standard as everyone else
<< <i>I'm still confused as to why Frank Thomas is given the benefit of the doubt. A giant man who hit 521 HRs when everyone is under suspicion? After having his body break down in his mid-30s, he miraculously recovers to hit 38 HRs at age 38? >>
He passed drug tests for four years. He either stopped using drugs when the new drug policy was implemented or the drug policy is unenforceable. In either case he is being held to the same standard as everyone else >>
[iAlso, Morris missed in his last attempt, thank goodness. Won't have to hear about his nonsense anymore. ]
Till the Veterans' Committee that is, LOL..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>I'm still confused as to why Frank Thomas is given the benefit of the doubt. A giant man who hit 521 HRs when everyone is under suspicion? After having his body break down in his mid-30s, he miraculously recovers to hit 38 HRs at age 38? >>
He passed drug tests for four years. He either stopped using drugs when the new drug policy was implemented or the drug policy is unenforceable. In either case he is being held to the same standard as everyone else >>
Did Bonds or Clemens fail any MLB drug tests? >>
Bonds and Clemens are hall of famers without PEDs. Anyone suggesting otherwise doesn't know the first lick about baseball.
<< <i>I'm not sold on Biggio but he'll get in and that's fine. But he was a clear step below the three guys who DID get in this year and that makes it a bit more special. These three were no-brainers for sure. >>
Look at Biggio this way. In 145 years of Major League Baseball, only 20 players have more hits than Biggio. That means, that out of over 17,000 players all time, he was 21st in hits all time. If that's not hall of fame, then I don't know what is. >>
Eh, it's as much a measure of durability as anything else. He played 19 full seasons (combining his rookie year and 1994 to get one full season) and averaged 161 hits a year. That doesn't exactly scream elite to me.
I'm a guy who strongly favors guys with high peaks but perhaps shorter careers over guys who are very good for a few years but hang around for 20 like Biggio.
Like I said, Biggio is hardly a bad choice but there was really never a time watching him where I thought "yeah, that guy's a HOFer".
What a day. To the surprise of no one, I'm incensed. But before you stone me for throwing a tantrum, it's not so much about Biggio being left out again. Am I upset about that? Yeah, I am. I think the guy deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. But the part that really gets me hot is the entire effing process. As far as I'm concerned, these voters should be thanking their lucky stars for the privilege they've been afforded, yet some of them make a complete mockery out of it.
Gurnick. I'm going to try and convey my thoughts about him without getting kicked off of here. I'd love to know just how pensive this guy has been over the past 12 months. An entire year to construct a ballot, and the best his brain could conjure up is the brilliant idea of making a spectacle out of himself. I guess I failed to receive the memo that Ken Gurnick is bigger than the sport of baseball. Nothing like being handed an invaluable privilege, then extending your middle finger in return. Someone please, please rescind, then take this dude behind the woodshed.
And lastly, I want someone more intelligent than yours truly to explain how a guy can fail to be a HoFer one year, then miraculously become one in the span of 12 months when the numbers haven't changed one iota. Or vice versa. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around that one, so if someone has a plausible explanation, I'm all eyeballs. The only reason someone should alter his/her ballot, in my opinion, is allegations that were proven to be true since the previous vote. If that scenario ceases to exist, then you have some serious explaining to do if your ballot becomes unrecognizable. It's almost as if these dudes collude. That would never happen, right?
I don't know what the panacea is, but I'm pissed. I'm pissed that guys cheat. I'm pissed that mindless d-bags control the sport's sanctuary. I guess I'm just pissed about baseball in general. I don't know how we got to this point, but I'd give my left arm to go back to 1980, bust a pack of Topps and not know anything.
<< <i>Gurnick. I'm going to try and convey my thoughts about him without getting kicked off of here. I'd love to know just how pensive this guy has been over the past 12 months. An entire year to construct a ballot, and the best his brain could conjure up is the brilliant idea of making a spectacle out of himself. I guess I failed to receive the memo that Ken Gurnick is bigger than the sport of baseball. Nothing like being handed an invaluable privilege, then extending your middle finger in return. Someone please, please rescind, then take this dude behind the woodshed. >>
I agree. If I were ever privileged to have a HOF ballot, you can bet I'd be treating it as something of a sacred honor. I'd spend a LOT of time on it.
<< <i>And lastly, I want someone more intelligent than yours truly to explain how a guy can fail to be a HoFer one year, then miraculously become one in the span of 12 months when the numbers haven't changed one iota. Or vice versa. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around that one, so if someone has a plausible explanation, I'm all eyeballs. The only reason someone should alter his/her ballot, in my opinion, is allegations that were proven to be true since the previous vote. If that scenario ceases to exist, then you have some serious explaining to do if your ballot becomes unrecognizable. It's almost as if these dudes collude. That would never happen, right? >>
Well, the only explanation would that you've re-examined a guy in a different context thanks to newly available stats or stuff you hadn't looked at before. Maybe you're a guy that for years overrated W/L records for pitchers and kept Bert Blyleven out because of it. Then you have your "come to Jesus" moment and read a good article on ERA+ and re-examine what you thought you knew. You realize, hey, that guy was really, really good. Something like that.
<< <i>Well, the only explanation would that you've re-examined a guy in a different context thanks to newly available stats or stuff you hadn't looked at before. Maybe you're a guy that for years overrated W/L records for pitchers and kept Bert Blyleven out because of it. Then you have your "come to Jesus" moment and read a good article on ERA+ and re-examine what you thought you knew. You realize, hey, that guy was really, really good. Something like that. >>
I suppose that's as good as any, but that would never in a million years apply to me. As you said, it's an honor. If it were bestowed upon me, I'd be able to recite every meaningful stat in my sleep -- and it sure as hell wouldn't take a year to do so. If a voter has an "epiphany" after 12 months, then it's time to revoke.
First, make ALL ballots public. Second, make all players have 1 year of eligibility, eliminating the grind and making players wait year after year. >>
Better idea for those that like replay officiating and mechanically called balls and strikes. Let the computers do the choosing. They have no hometown bias. Let them glide though a bunch of numbers and spit out a verdict. I like the one year and out eligibility as well.
<< <i>Well, the only explanation would that you've re-examined a guy in a different context thanks to newly available stats or stuff you hadn't looked at before. Maybe you're a guy that for years overrated W/L records for pitchers and kept Bert Blyleven out because of it. Then you have your "come to Jesus" moment and read a good article on ERA+ and re-examine what you thought you knew. You realize, hey, that guy was really, really good. Something like that. >>
I suppose that's as good as any, but that would never in a million years apply to me. As you said, it's an honor. If it were bestowed upon me, I'd be able to recite every meaningful stat in my sleep -- and it sure as hell wouldn't take a year to do so. If a voter has an "epiphany" after 12 months, then it's time to revoke. >>
This assumes you know what all the meaningful stats are; as most self-aware baseball analysts from the 1980s will tell you, metrics can and do change.
<< <i>This assumes you know what all the meaningful stats are; as most self-aware baseball analysts from the 1980s will tell you, metrics can and do change. >>
If I happen to sneeze and miss it, be sure and inform me of the inclusionary metric that helps Biggio garner two-tenths of a percent over the next twelve months.
On the bright side, Biggio will eventually get enshrined as a HOFer. Doesn't matter if was last year, this, or next; he will get in and end of the day, that's all that matters.
<< <i>Ken Gurnick of MLB.com received heavy criticism for voting only for Jack Morris. Well, at least Gurnick revealed his vote and provided an explanation, however illogical it might have sounded. Fifteen other voters failed to vote for Maddux. And we don’t know who the heck they are.
...[The National Enquirer of Sports ~ me] obtained one vote — one out of 571 — in an effort to make “a farce and mockery of the increasingly solemn election process.” Further, it likened some BBWAA voters to “attention-seeking trolls.”
Well, then, what exactly is Dan Le Batard, who turned over his ballot to Deadspin and got plenty of attention for explaining that his vote has “gotten pretty worthless in the avalanche of sanctimony that has swallowed it.”
What exactly is Deadspin, for that matter?
If Le Batard no longer wanted to vote, he could have resigned from the BBWAA and spared us his sanctimony.
...Listen, I find it incomprehensible that 16 voters failed to vote for Maddux, but I am flatly opposed to stripping voters of their ballots simply because of the choices they make.
Democracy is messy. Evelyn Beatrice Hall, in her biography of Voltaire, summarized the French philosopher's beliefs with the phrase, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to your death the right to say it.”
That goes for Gurnick. And Le Batard. And everyone else with whom I might disagree. >>
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>What exactly is Deadspin, for that matter? >>
Keep your head in the sand, Ken. >>
How does a sports fan, let alone someone covering sports not know about Deadspin? That's why the BBWA are a joke in many peoples eyes. >>
+1
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
It is who votes that is the problem! They are writers! That doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. They are great are sentence structure and 'making stories', but neither of those lend itself to analyzing and determining ability, worth, or value of a baseball player.
But, like Tabe said in regard to why a player gets 15 years on the ballot....things change! I am still in shock and awe that the writers actually picked a Cy Young Winner with a 13-12 record(King Felix). That simply WOULD NOT have happened 25 years ago...but people are learning(very slowly and inconsistently, but they are learning).
If Catfish Hunter were up for election for the first time this year, he would NOT be getting more than 20% of the vote(and rightfully so, because even that is too high for him), so there is hope!
Writers and broadcasters are slowly starting to realize that there are far better ways to measure baseball players than the archaic methods they grew up with. I grew up with the same archaic methods, and I myself used to hail RBI as the greatest stat....that is until the Elias sports books came out in the early/mid 80's and they showed how X player only got more RBI than the other guy because he had 85 more runners in scoring position to drive in when he batted. That was a game changer, because it was common sense mixed with facts to back it up. That was just the beginning, as things improved light years since then!
As for this guy(voter) everyone is talking about, no matter what you do, there will be a few complete fools in the process...and that is why the threshold is only 75%.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>Maddux has been left off a ballot, so no 100% for him... >>
Just read the guy who left him off did so because he won't vote for any players in the steroid era. Idiotic and further proof the hall is worthless. >>
That is rich. You disagree with one voter, so the HOF is worthless. That is like saying these boards are useless because you post here.
<< <i>Idiotic and further proof the hall is worthless. >>
Agree.
<< <i>That is like saying these boards are useless because you post here. >>
Also agree!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Maddux has been left off a ballot, so no 100% for him... >>
Just read the guy who left him off did so because he won't vote for any players in the steroid era. Idiotic and further proof the hall is worthless. >>
That is rich. You disagree with one voter, so the HOF is worthless. That is like saying these boards are useless because you post here. >>
Unlike these boards, the HoF is actually worth a damn. Leaving a guy off and not voting for anyone from an entire era? Then turn in your vote now, sir.
<< <i>Maybe so but for a catcher defensive ability and being able to gun down runners is more important. >>
And how did you come to that conclusion, exactly?
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Did anybody actually think Maddux was going to get 100% of the vote? Wasn't a chance, anyway. >>
He was a great pitcher but to be the first unanimous inductee, ever? Not so much..
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Maddux has been left off a ballot, so no 100% for him... >>
Just read the guy who left him off did so because he won't vote for any players in the steroid era. Idiotic and further proof the hall is worthless. >>
That is rich. You disagree with one voter, so the HOF is worthless. That is like saying these boards are useless because you post here. >>
Unlike these boards, the HoF is actually worth a damn. Leaving a guy off and not voting for anyone from an entire era? Then turn in your vote now, sir. >>
Apparently, he will...sort of. I heard he will abstain from voting in subsequent years.
<< <i>
<< <i>Did anybody actually think Maddux was going to get 100% of the vote? Wasn't a chance, anyway. >>
He was a great pitcher but to be the first unanimous inductee, ever? Not so much.. >>
So he shouldn't be unanimous because...there hasn't been one before? That's as idiotic a 'reasoning' as the guy who didn't vote for him refusing to vote for anyone in the steroid era.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Did anybody actually think Maddux was going to get 100% of the vote? Wasn't a chance, anyway. >>
He was a great pitcher but to be the first unanimous inductee, ever? Not so much.. >>
So he shouldn't be unanimous because...there hasn't been one before? That's as idiotic a 'reasoning' as the guy who didn't vote for him refusing to vote for anyone in the steroid era. >>
There wasn't a chance because Maddux wasn't the best pitcher of all time. Go back a few decades and call the voters idiots that didn't unanimously vote in Seaver, Walter Johnson, Mathewson, etc. Who knows, maybe one of the 'idiots' that won't be voting for Maddux (and there will be more than one) will vote for Edgar Martinez. Will he still be an idiot in your mind?
You should start the predictable thread on the idiots that don't unanimously vote in Pedro when he's eligible...that won't happen, either. It's not an exact science.
<< <i>
There wasn't a chance because Maddux wasn't the best pitcher of all time. >>
I never said he was the best pitcher of all time. But he is a no-doubt-about-it Hall of Famer, and yes, anyone who doesn't vote for him is (a) an idiot, and (b) deserves to have their vote taken away.
<< <i>Go back a few decades and call the voters idiots that didn't unanimously vote in Seaver, Walter Johnson, Mathewson, etc. >>
They are idiots, too. Trying to keep up this 'tradition' of not making anyone a 100%, unanimous Hall of Famer is pathetic and yes, idiotic.
<< <i>Who knows, maybe one of the 'idiots' that won't be voting for Maddux (and there will be more than one) will vote for Edgar Martinez. Will he still be an idiot in your mind? >>
No, because unlike Maddux, I can understand the argument for voting against Martinez (didn't play defense for one). When your only reason not to vote for Maddux is you aren't going to vote for anyone from the steroid era? Then you're an idiot and you don't deserve the extreme priviledge of voting for the Hall of Fame.
<< <i>You should start the predictable thread on the idiots that don't unanimously vote in Pedro when he's eligible...that won't happen, either. It's not an exact science. >>
In the cases of Maddux and Pedro, it doesn't have to be an exact science. Both are Hall of Famers. Both are, without question, and baseball fans dare to ask why their sport is dying? This is not helping things (that and trying to turn their back on an entire era of players, but that's another topic).
I will say it'd be neat for two "Killer B's" to go in together. Not to mention two of the world famous guys on the 90s Braves rotation and the 2nd best player of the 1990s joining them.
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
<< <i>So he won't be voting in the future? Does that mean Griffey becomes the first unanimous inductee in a class where he is the only inductee? >>
If he's provided a ballot but doesn't vote, then no one will get 100% because it's based upon available votes. He would have to outright forfeit his voting privileges.
<< <i>Is the non participating voter suspicious that Maddux may have used PED'S, or does he just figure the drug era is so statistically tainted to not be worthy of any new hall members? >>
I assume he meant the latter for those who played during the midish 90's to late '00s.
<< <i>Idiotic and further proof the hall is worthless. >>
Unlike these boards, the HoF is actually worth a damn >>
Did everyone else miss how truly awesome this is?
Trying to make one point, then immediately trying to say the exact opposite thing
Guess this counts as proof that even you don't believe the ridiculous drivel you write
<< <i>
<< <i>Idiotic and further proof the hall is worthless. >>
Unlike these boards, the HoF is actually worth a damn >>
Did everyone else miss how truly awesome this is?
Trying to make one point, then immediately trying to say the exact opposite thing
Guess this counts as proof that even you don't believe the ridiculous drivel you write >>
Beginning to like 1985fan. The man is passionate about sports and like most of us, truly frustrated. I was a manic baseball fan up until the early 1990's when Ernie Harwell was fired by the Tigers. I was shaken from a 30 year stupor of believing that the major leagues had any interest in the general public, other than the quality and depths of their wallets.
I still observe sports, but from the perspective of one who enjoys the competition, rather than a dedication to a single player or team.
99.5 - Maddux
99.5 - galaxy27
95.4 - Glavine
89.7 - F. Thomas
78.4 - Biggio
———————————
68.6 - Piazza
61.3 - Jack (The Jack) Morris
58.2 - Bagwell
54.1 - Raines
42.3 - Bonds
40.7 - Clemens
36.6 - Schilling
26.3 - Mussina
25.8 - E. Martinez
24.2 - L. Smith
22.7 - Trammell
15.5 - Kent
11.9 - McGriff
10.81 - DIMEMAN
10.8 - McGwire
8.2 - L. Walker
7.7 - S. Sosa
6.2 - R. Palmeiro
5.2 - Mattingly
———————————
0.5 - P. Rose (Write-In)
0.5 - 1985fan (Write-In by 1985fan)
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
<< <i>Is the non participating voter suspicious that Maddux may have used PED'S, or does he just figure the drug era is so statistically tainted to not be worthy of any new hall members? >>
To me, he's obviously doing it to draw attention to himself. He knew Maddux would get in on a first ballot, so he 'dramatically' left off Maddux, claims that he can't in good conscience vote for anyone from that era (despite Morris himself playing a good number of years in that very same timeframe), and is yapping about PEDs as if he suddenly developed a conscience.
This clown's voting history is proof that he should not have a vote, and it should be rescinded immediately. This year, he voted only for Jack Morris, last year, he voted for Morris and Lee Smith. In 2011? He voted for Blyleven and Smith, but no Morris. Huh? And he's already on record as saying he won't vote for Mariano Rivera when his eligibility arrives. He's saying he won't vote for ANYONE from here on out.
Baseball needs to step in, do the right thing, and strip this guy's vote.
<< <i>I'm not sold on Biggio but he'll get in and that's fine. But he was a clear step below the three guys who DID get in this year and that makes it a bit more special. These three were no-brainers for sure. >>
Look at Biggio this way. In 145 years of Major League Baseball, only 20 players have more hits than Biggio. That means, that out of over 17,000 players all time, he was 21st in hits all time. If that's not hall of fame, then I don't know what is.
PSA HOF Baseball Postwar Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 80.51% Complete)
PSA Pro Football HOF Rookie Players Set Registry- (Currently 19.80% Complete)
PSA Basketball HOF Players Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 6.02% Complete)
<< <i>I'm still confused as to why Frank Thomas is given the benefit of the doubt. A giant man who hit 521 HRs when everyone is under suspicion? After having his body break down in his mid-30s, he miraculously recovers to hit 38 HRs at age 38? >>
He passed drug tests for four years. He either stopped using drugs when the new drug policy was implemented or the drug policy is unenforceable. In either case he is being held to the same standard as everyone else
<< <i>
<< <i>I'm still confused as to why Frank Thomas is given the benefit of the doubt. A giant man who hit 521 HRs when everyone is under suspicion? After having his body break down in his mid-30s, he miraculously recovers to hit 38 HRs at age 38? >>
He passed drug tests for four years. He either stopped using drugs when the new drug policy was implemented or the drug policy is unenforceable. In either case he is being held to the same standard as everyone else >>
Did Bonds or Clemens fail any MLB drug tests?
<< <i>
Did Bonds or Clemens fail any MLB drug tests? >>
Why do you ask questions you already know the answer to?
<< <i>
<< <i>
Did Bonds or Clemens fail any MLB drug tests? >>
Why do you ask questions you already know the answer to? >>
Isn't that what you just did?
McGwire and Sosa are getting dangerously close to that figure as well.
Also, Morris missed in his last attempt, thank goodness. Won't have to hear about his nonsense anymore.
Till the Veterans' Committee that is, LOL..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I'm still confused as to why Frank Thomas is given the benefit of the doubt. A giant man who hit 521 HRs when everyone is under suspicion? After having his body break down in his mid-30s, he miraculously recovers to hit 38 HRs at age 38? >>
He passed drug tests for four years. He either stopped using drugs when the new drug policy was implemented or the drug policy is unenforceable. In either case he is being held to the same standard as everyone else >>
Did Bonds or Clemens fail any MLB drug tests? >>
Bonds and Clemens are hall of famers without PEDs. Anyone suggesting otherwise doesn't know the first lick about baseball.
<< <i>
<< <i>I'm not sold on Biggio but he'll get in and that's fine. But he was a clear step below the three guys who DID get in this year and that makes it a bit more special. These three were no-brainers for sure. >>
Look at Biggio this way. In 145 years of Major League Baseball, only 20 players have more hits than Biggio. That means, that out of over 17,000 players all time, he was 21st in hits all time. If that's not hall of fame, then I don't know what is. >>
Eh, it's as much a measure of durability as anything else. He played 19 full seasons (combining his rookie year and 1994 to get one full season) and averaged 161 hits a year. That doesn't exactly scream elite to me.
I'm a guy who strongly favors guys with high peaks but perhaps shorter careers over guys who are very good for a few years but hang around for 20 like Biggio.
Like I said, Biggio is hardly a bad choice but there was really never a time watching him where I thought "yeah, that guy's a HOFer".
Gurnick. I'm going to try and convey my thoughts about him without getting kicked off of here. I'd love to know just how pensive this guy has been over the past 12 months. An entire year to construct a ballot, and the best his brain could conjure up is the brilliant idea of making a spectacle out of himself. I guess I failed to receive the memo that Ken Gurnick is bigger than the sport of baseball. Nothing like being handed an invaluable privilege, then extending your middle finger in return. Someone please, please rescind, then take this dude behind the woodshed.
And lastly, I want someone more intelligent than yours truly to explain how a guy can fail to be a HoFer one year, then miraculously become one in the span of 12 months when the numbers haven't changed one iota. Or vice versa. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around that one, so if someone has a plausible explanation, I'm all eyeballs. The only reason someone should alter his/her ballot, in my opinion, is allegations that were proven to be true since the previous vote. If that scenario ceases to exist, then you have some serious explaining to do if your ballot becomes unrecognizable. It's almost as if these dudes collude. That would never happen, right?
I don't know what the panacea is, but I'm pissed. I'm pissed that guys cheat. I'm pissed that mindless d-bags control the sport's sanctuary. I guess I'm just pissed about baseball in general. I don't know how we got to this point, but I'd give my left arm to go back to 1980, bust a pack of Topps and not know anything.
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
<< <i>Gurnick. I'm going to try and convey my thoughts about him without getting kicked off of here. I'd love to know just how pensive this guy has been over the past 12 months. An entire year to construct a ballot, and the best his brain could conjure up is the brilliant idea of making a spectacle out of himself. I guess I failed to receive the memo that Ken Gurnick is bigger than the sport of baseball. Nothing like being handed an invaluable privilege, then extending your middle finger in return. Someone please, please rescind, then take this dude behind the woodshed. >>
I agree. If I were ever privileged to have a HOF ballot, you can bet I'd be treating it as something of a sacred honor. I'd spend a LOT of time on it.
<< <i>And lastly, I want someone more intelligent than yours truly to explain how a guy can fail to be a HoFer one year, then miraculously become one in the span of 12 months when the numbers haven't changed one iota. Or vice versa. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around that one, so if someone has a plausible explanation, I'm all eyeballs. The only reason someone should alter his/her ballot, in my opinion, is allegations that were proven to be true since the previous vote. If that scenario ceases to exist, then you have some serious explaining to do if your ballot becomes unrecognizable. It's almost as if these dudes collude. That would never happen, right? >>
Well, the only explanation would that you've re-examined a guy in a different context thanks to newly available stats or stuff you hadn't looked at before. Maybe you're a guy that for years overrated W/L records for pitchers and kept Bert Blyleven out because of it. Then you have your "come to Jesus" moment and read a good article on ERA+ and re-examine what you thought you knew. You realize, hey, that guy was really, really good. Something like that.
First, make ALL ballots public. Second, make all players have 1 year of eligibility, eliminating the grind and making players wait year after year.
<< <i>Well, the only explanation would that you've re-examined a guy in a different context thanks to newly available stats or stuff you hadn't looked at before. Maybe you're a guy that for years overrated W/L records for pitchers and kept Bert Blyleven out because of it. Then you have your "come to Jesus" moment and read a good article on ERA+ and re-examine what you thought you knew. You realize, hey, that guy was really, really good. Something like that. >>
I suppose that's as good as any, but that would never in a million years apply to me. As you said, it's an honor. If it were bestowed upon me, I'd be able to recite every meaningful stat in my sleep -- and it sure as hell wouldn't take a year to do so. If a voter has an "epiphany" after 12 months, then it's time to revoke.
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
<< <i>Here's how I'd fix hall voting:
First, make ALL ballots public. Second, make all players have 1 year of eligibility, eliminating the grind and making players wait year after year. >>
Better idea for those that like replay officiating and mechanically called balls and strikes. Let the computers do the choosing. They have no hometown bias. Let them glide though a bunch of numbers and spit out a verdict. I like the one year and out eligibility as well.
<< <i>
<< <i>Well, the only explanation would that you've re-examined a guy in a different context thanks to newly available stats or stuff you hadn't looked at before. Maybe you're a guy that for years overrated W/L records for pitchers and kept Bert Blyleven out because of it. Then you have your "come to Jesus" moment and read a good article on ERA+ and re-examine what you thought you knew. You realize, hey, that guy was really, really good. Something like that. >>
I suppose that's as good as any, but that would never in a million years apply to me. As you said, it's an honor. If it were bestowed upon me, I'd be able to recite every meaningful stat in my sleep -- and it sure as hell wouldn't take a year to do so. If a voter has an "epiphany" after 12 months, then it's time to revoke. >>
This assumes you know what all the meaningful stats are; as most self-aware baseball analysts from the 1980s will tell you, metrics can and do change.
<< <i>This assumes you know what all the meaningful stats are; as most self-aware baseball analysts from the 1980s will tell you, metrics can and do change. >>
If I happen to sneeze and miss it, be sure and inform me of the inclusionary metric that helps Biggio garner two-tenths of a percent over the next twelve months.
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
Good read by Ken Rosenthal -> Link
<< <i>Ken Gurnick of MLB.com received heavy criticism for voting only for Jack Morris. Well, at least Gurnick revealed his vote and provided an explanation, however illogical it might have sounded. Fifteen other voters failed to vote for Maddux. And we don’t know who the heck they are.
...[The National Enquirer of Sports ~ me] obtained one vote — one out of 571 — in an effort to make “a farce and mockery of the increasingly solemn election process.” Further, it likened some BBWAA voters to “attention-seeking trolls.”
Well, then, what exactly is Dan Le Batard, who turned over his ballot to Deadspin and got plenty of attention for explaining that his vote has “gotten pretty worthless in the avalanche of sanctimony that has swallowed it.”
What exactly is Deadspin, for that matter?
If Le Batard no longer wanted to vote, he could have resigned from the BBWAA and spared us his sanctimony.
...Listen, I find it incomprehensible that 16 voters failed to vote for Maddux, but I am flatly opposed to stripping voters of their ballots simply because of the choices they make.
Democracy is messy. Evelyn Beatrice Hall, in her biography of Voltaire, summarized the French philosopher's beliefs with the phrase, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to your death the right to say it.”
That goes for Gurnick. And Le Batard. And everyone else with whom I might disagree. >>
<< <i>What exactly is Deadspin, for that matter? >>
Keep your head in the sand, Ken.
<< <i>
<< <i>What exactly is Deadspin, for that matter? >>
Keep your head in the sand, Ken. >>
How does a sports fan, let alone someone covering sports not know about Deadspin? That's why the BBWA are a joke in many peoples eyes.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>What exactly is Deadspin, for that matter? >>
Keep your head in the sand, Ken. >>
How does a sports fan, let alone someone covering sports not know about Deadspin? That's why the BBWA are a joke in many peoples eyes. >>
+1
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
The 15 years on the ballot isn't the problem.
It is who votes that is the problem! They are writers! That doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. They are great are sentence structure and 'making stories', but neither of those lend itself to analyzing and determining ability, worth, or value of a baseball player.
But, like Tabe said in regard to why a player gets 15 years on the ballot....things change! I am still in shock and awe that the writers actually picked a Cy Young Winner with a 13-12 record(King Felix). That simply WOULD NOT have happened 25 years ago...but people are learning(very slowly and inconsistently, but they are learning).
If Catfish Hunter were up for election for the first time this year, he would NOT be getting more than 20% of the vote(and rightfully so, because even that is too high for him), so there is hope!
Writers and broadcasters are slowly starting to realize that there are far better ways to measure baseball players than the archaic methods they grew up with. I grew up with the same archaic methods, and I myself used to hail RBI as the greatest stat....that is until the Elias sports books came out in the early/mid 80's and they showed how X player only got more RBI than the other guy because he had 85 more runners in scoring position to drive in when he batted. That was a game changer, because it was common sense mixed with facts to back it up. That was just the beginning, as things improved light years since then!
As for this guy(voter) everyone is talking about, no matter what you do, there will be a few complete fools in the process...and that is why the threshold is only 75%.