Maddux will not be a unanimous selection to HOF

coachnip13

There may be a couple more ballots that leave him off, but we know that Ken Gurnick did not vote for Maddux. He says that he refuses to vote for any player from the PED era, voting only for Jack Morris.

grote15

Some started a thread about it esarlier today.

Link

Total moron who should have his HOF voting revoked.

Estil

No different than the only elector who voted against James Monroe in the 1820 election (he voted for John Quincy Adams instead) to ensure (at least according to legend) that George Washington remained the only unanimously elected President. Seriously if Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, or more recently Nolan Ryan and Cal Ripken, Jr didn't get 100% why should Maddux or really anyone else?

Also there were those electors (not too long ago actually) who NEVER under any circumstances voted for ANYONE on their first ballot.

coachnip13

<< <i>Seriously if Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, or more recently Nolan Ryan and Cal Ripken, Jr didn't get 100% why should Maddux or really anyone else? >>



Because Hall of Fame voting isn't a group discussion. It's individual. If a person doesn't vote for a player just because he doesn't want anyone to get 100%, then scrap the process. If a voter doesn't think Greg Maddux isn't a Hall of Famer, let's hear why. But save the excuse that "no one else ever got 100%".

grote15

<< <i>Also there were those electors (not too long ago actually) who NEVER under any circumstances voted for ANYONE on their first ballot. >>



Equally moronic.

Estil

So it was wrong of that Presidental elector to ensure GW stayed the only unanimously elected President? I was going by historical precedent, not a "group vote".

lightningboy

Seriously if Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, or more recently Nolan Ryan and Cal Ripken, Jr didn't get 100% why should Maddux or really anyone else?

Anyone ever explain to you the "2 wrongs don't make a right" theory?

Estil

I never said it WAS wrong.

grote15

<< <i>I never said it WAS wrong. >>



You don't believe Maddux is a HOFer? Seriously?

Because not voiting for him as such because someone else wasn't a unanimous selection is really rather riduiculous.

coachnip13

<< <i>So it was wrong of that Presidental elector to ensure GW stayed the only unanimously elected President? I was going by historical precedent, not a "group vote". >>




How do we determine who holds out for the anti-100% vote? That's where the group vote thing comes in. If some guy names himself the "no 100% vote-getters" voter, then he isn't voting on Hall of Famers. He's making a statement, which should ban him from voting altogether.

Estil

<< <i>

<< <i>I never said it WAS wrong. >>



You don't believe Maddux is a HOFer? Seriously?

Because not voiting for him as such because someone else wasn't a unanimous selection is really rather riduiculous. >>



sigh...yet another strawman...

At NO point did I EVER say "Maddux is not a HOFer" (shoot even if his career ended after 1995 he would be; no different than Koufax in that situation). At NO point did I ever say it was "wrong" to prevent someone from getting 100%. On the contrary, I was simply giving the benefit of the doubt to those who either don't believe anyone should go in with 100% of the BW's vote or don't believe in voting for anyone on the first ballot. As for the ones "not voting for anyone during the 'roids era because everyone's a suspect", that'd kinda stretching it.

Now, no more words put in my mouth please.

Estil

<< <i>

<< <i>So it was wrong of that Presidental elector to ensure GW stayed the only unanimously elected President? I was going by historical precedent, not a "group vote". >>




How do we determine who holds out for the anti-100% vote? That's where the group vote thing comes in. If some guy names himself the "no 100% vote-getters" voter, then he isn't voting on Hall of Famers. He's making a statement, which should ban him from voting altogether. >>



I think I remember one or more voters explaining that the shoo-in "doesn't need" his vote and needs his max of 10 votes for "other guys" who need the votes more.

Seriously, even Ripken himself didn't think it was a big deal he didn't get 100% (and I figured if ANYONE deserved it was him; after all he pretty much saved baseball from the 1994 strike backlash, and just the 3000 hits alone gets you in on the first ballot)...he said HOF is HOF. Kinda interesting though he fell exactly his uniform number (8) votes short though!

grote15

On the contrary, I was simply giving the benefit of the doubt to those who either don't believe anyone should go in with 100% of the BW's vote or don't believe in voting for anyone on the first ballot.

I know this is what you were saying. That doesn't make it less ridiculous.

Any voter who refrains from voting for a candidate solely on the basis that player X was not a unanimous inductee should have their voting privileges revoked permanently. Period.

Estil

I would feel more that way towards the "must not vote for anyone from the 'roids era" voters but that's just me.

DeutscherGeist

There is always going to be human bias in voting, so that is why several hundred ballots are cast. It all averages out and a ball player will eventually go where he is suppose to.

It looks like 4 guys will make it in this year. I cannot argue against any of them. What a class this year.

grote15

Seriously if Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, or more recently Nolan Ryan and Cal Ripken, Jr didn't get 100% why should Maddux or really anyone else?

To answer your question directly:

Seriously, one should have absolutely nothing to do with the other.

If a voter abdicates the responsibility he is charged with in casting his ballot just so that he can make a self-serving "statement" akin to saying, "Well, if Ty Cobb or Willie Mays or Tom Seaver wasn't unanimously elected, NO ONE WILL BE," that person's voting privilege should be awarded to someone else.

grote15

<< <i>There is always going to be human bias in voting, so that is why several hundred ballots are cast. It all averages out and a ball player will eventually go where he is suppose to.

It looks like 4 guys will make it in this year. I cannot argue against any of them. What a class this year. >>



Piazza may get in, as well.

Edit to add:

Actually, it looks like both Piazza and Biggio are losing ground~there may be only 3 going in. Those three (Thomas, Maddux and Glavine) are all over 90% with over 30% of vote in.

Mattingly is currently barely over 5% minimum, at 5.5%.

grote15

Up to date %:

Updated: Jan.7 - 11:15 ~ 182 Full Ballots ~ (32.0% of vote ~ based on last year)

99.5 - Maddux
96.2 - Glavine
91.2 - F. Thomas
78.6 - Biggio
———————————
69.2 - Piazza
60.4 - Jack (The Jack) Morris
58.8 - Bagwell
56.0 - Raines
41.8 - Bonds
40.7 - Clemens
35.7 - Schilling
26.9 - Mussina
25.3 - E. Martinez
24.2 - L. Smith
23.6 - Trammell
15.4 - Kent
12.6 - McGriff
10.4 - McGwire
8.2 - L. Walker
8.2 - S. Sosa
6.6 - R. Palmeiro
5.5 - Mattingly
———————————
0.5 - P. Rose (Write-In)

NamesJay

Surprised Schilling's vote count is so low.

thenavarro

If the voter earned his right to vote, he should be allowed to vote however he pleases, and unless there are already repercussions in the BBWA process for voting in a way that someone else doesn't approve of (which in that case to me would be even more egregious than this dudes vote) then he should not lose his voting privilege because of it IMO

Would I have voted for Maddux, yes, but I don't have and haven't earned a vote.

Mike

grote15

<< <i>If the voter earned his right to vote, he should be allowed to vote however he pleases, and unless there are already repercussions in the BBWA process for voting in a way that someone else doesn't approve of (which in that case to me would be even more egregious than this dudes vote) then he should not lose his voting privilege because of it IMO

Would I have voted for Maddux, yes, but I don't have and haven't earned a vote.

Mike >>



Well, many fans already consider the HOF voting process a joke and Lord knows the Hall is already watered down as it is, so why break with tradition, right? LOL..

Edit to add: That said, it's still asinine..

cjaccardi

im sure there will be a few voters who do not vote for him.

in the end does it matter one bit ? he gets in the hall of fame no matter what and that's all that will ever be remembered or cared about.

grote15

<< <i>im sure there will be a few voters who do not vote for him.

in the end does it matter one bit ? he gets in the hall of fame no matter what and that's all that will ever be remembered or cared about. >>



That is true. As long as Jack "I pitch to the score" Morris is not inducted, the ballot still makes sense, at least, LOL...

LarkinCollector

<< <i>Surprised Schilling's vote count is so low. >>


Asinine limit of 10 per voter combined with a strong class this year including lots of holdovers, I'm not. He should be in within the next few years as long as his post-baseball career doesn't tarnish his image too much with the writers.

Dboneesq

Saw something pretty interesting on TV the other day. Didnt see the entire clip so i may have missed something, but was surprised to see that Mike Messina's stats and Jim Palmer's stats were very similar.

NVbaseball

<< <i> Seriously if Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, or more recently Nolan Ryan and Cal Ripken, Jr didn't get 100% why should Maddux or really anyone else?
>>



When Ruth and Cobb were elected, no one even knew what the meaning and honor of the Hall-of-Fame would come to be. Ruth had only been retired for one year. It really doesn't matter if Maddux earns 100% or not. It doesn't change anything about his place in history. What is bothersome is that Ken Gurnick is allowed to vote for the Hall-of-Fame

Skin2

<< <i>

<< <i> Seriously if Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, or more recently Nolan Ryan and Cal Ripken, Jr didn't get 100% why should Maddux or really anyone else?
>>



When Ruth and Cobb were elected, no one even knew what the meaning and honor of the Hall-of-Fame would come to be. Ruth had only been retired for one year. It really doesn't matter if Maddux earns 100% or not. It doesn't change anything about his place in history. What is bothersome is that Ken Gurnick is allowed to vote for the Hall-of-Fame >>



Right, that is why 75% gets a player inducted. That percentage requirement keeps the dozen or so morons who vote, from really screwing things up.

ClockworkAngel

<< <i>

<< <i> Seriously if Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, or more recently Nolan Ryan and Cal Ripken, Jr didn't get 100% why should Maddux or really anyone else?
>>



When Ruth and Cobb were elected, no one even knew what the meaning and honor of the Hall-of-Fame would come to be. Ruth had only been retired for one year. It really doesn't matter if Maddux earns 100% or not. It doesn't change anything about his place in history. What is bothersome is that Ken Gurnick is allowed to vote for the Hall-of-Fame >>



GREAT POINT. It was a work in process at that time.

I compare it to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. It is still in it's early stages and there doesn't seem to be a clear definition. A group like Rush finally got in last year, but KISS, Deep Purple, Yes, etc etc are not in...yet Madonna, Donna Summer, Abba are all in the ROCK AND ROLL Hall of Fame. Everyone has a different idea of who should be in that place

georgebailey2

Because of the system set up, Bill James put it best (I'm paraphrasing) when asked "Who/what is a Hall of Famer?" "Someone who is in the Hall of Fame."

It is infuriating that there are no unanimous elections. The only time the ballot is more than a binary decision - Is this player a Hall of Famer? - is when there are legitimately more than 10 worthy candidates. Even then, anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the game would be able to distinguish between the worthiness of Greg Maddux compared to Jack Morris. Writers that do not vote in this matter are taking all objectivity out of the process. They may as well write in their grandmother's name. Most likely, they are narcissists.

I remember after Schmidt's election, WIP had on a local writer who did not vote for Schmidt. The reason had to do with the fact that Schmidt rubbed the guy the wrong way early on either by being curt during an interview or not doing an interview. It was something along those lines. I called in to say, "So, you didn't vote for Schmidt because of some petty personal grievance? Wow, you have to respect such an ethical and principled man. Your opinions are well reasoned nuggets of gold."

Writers that vote in that manner should have their privileges revoked.

hyperchipper09

It's a screwy system. Watching MLB TV last night, I forget the guys name. But he made fairly intelligent arguments throughout. Until Schilling. One of his his beefs was, a HOF'er needed to have 10 "TEN" HOF type seasons. Then he proceeded to state his case for Schilling, while at the same time saying "even though Schilling only had 7 HOF type seasons", which Harold Reynolds called him on. Funny to watch, funny to listen to, but honestly those guys who vote, like the ones I saw last night, really have no more clue what a HOF'er is than any of us posting here. One guy brings up PEDS and what would be said now if a Roger Maris went from 39 HR's to 61 overnight. Obviously not sitting well with Costas, who proceeded to list what seemed like 100 reasons for Maris legit doing it. Missing the point entirely, which is what Costas is great at when it comes to his boyhood heroes.
The voting system is flawed, that will never change. Personal beefs and grievances will always play a part in voting, regardless of "professionalism". It's human nature. Best to just come out and admit something like "yeah I'm not voting for that clown because of this, this and that" than to leave everyone wondering. If a voter doesn't like a guy, say so. Man up, own the vote.

olb31

<< <i>

<< <i>If the voter earned his right to vote, he should be allowed to vote however he pleases, and unless there are already repercussions in the BBWA process for voting in a way that someone else doesn't approve of (which in that case to me would be even more egregious than this dudes vote) then he should not lose his voting privilege because of it IMO

Would I have voted for Maddux, yes, but I don't have and haven't earned a vote.

Mike >>



Well, many fans already consider the HOF voting process a joke and Lord knows the Hall is already watered down as it is, so why break with tradition, right? LOL..

Edit to add: That said, it's still asinine.. >>



AMEN. Ron Santo, Elston Howard, Tony Oliva, Billy Williams - I am sure there are about 3 dozen more that the voters vote in. These were very good players, but HOFers come on. Basically, let the voters without flaws/indiscretions cast the first vote.

Tabe

<< <i>I compare it to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. It is still in it's early stages and there doesn't seem to be a clear definition. A group like Rush finally got in last year, but KISS, Deep Purple, Yes, etc etc are not in...yet Madonna, Donna Summer, Abba are all in the ROCK AND ROLL Hall of Fame. Everyone has a different idea of who should be in that place >>


Maybe it'll please you to know that KISS is now in

Tabe

<< <i>
When Ruth and Cobb were elected, no one even knew what the meaning and honor of the Hall-of-Fame would come to be. Ruth had only been retired for one year. It really doesn't matter if Maddux earns 100% or not. It doesn't change anything about his place in history. What is bothersome is that Ken Gurnick is allowed to vote for the Hall-of-Fame >>


The other thing to remember is that when Cobb & Ruth were elected, the voters were picking from EVERY player who'd ever played. Tris Speaker, Nap Lajoie, Cy Young, Grover Cleveland Alexander, and lots of other no-doubters were NOT elected that first year. Alexander didn't make it the next year either! So creating this mythical "nobody's ever gotten 100%" standard is just plain stupid.

Estil

As for Schilling, one I'm most surprised he's even eligible already, and two, doesn't he deserve a little better than 30ish percent? He's got 3,116 K's (which 3000 K's for a pitcher should could count the same as 3000 hits for a batter) and while his 216 wins and 3.46 aren't really anything special as far as HOF numbers goes, but he was not only won three World Series champs (BoSox in 2004 and 2007, D'backs in 2001) and a NL champ wayyyyyyy back in 1993 (Phillies), but what really should put him over the top is him leading a big time underdog Phillies team over the then two time defending champ Braves, was co-World Series MVP with Randy Johnson with the 2001 D'backs who beat the four out of five time defending champ Yankees, and of course who could forget his bloody sock performance in the 2004 World Series (that sock BTW is on display at the HOF)?

Look, I don't mind him not getting in on the first ballot but sheesh, can't we do a little better than getting in the 30s? Screw Reggie Jackson...Curt is the REAL "Mr. October", and unlike Santa...sorry Reggie it wasn't for just one night.