Jump to content

HOF Irony


PP1
 Share

Recommended Posts

Funny that about 15 people did not feel that Randy Johnson deserved their vote. Also funny is that Darren Erstad received a vote and Aaron Boone received 2. Tom Gordon got 4. Makes me wonder about the intelligence of baseball writers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of people don't vot for AnThe top guys because they feel like that person is going to get elected anyway, so they think they can make their vote more meaningful somewhere else. It's stupid, but I'd think 100% agree Pedro and Randy deserve to be in the HOF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny that about 15 people did not feel that Randy Johnson deserved their vote. Also funny is that Darren Erstad received a vote and Aaron Boone received 2. Tom Gordon got 4. Makes me wonder about the intelligence of baseball writers.

 

One of the greats.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That was born in North Dakota.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the greats.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That was born in North Dakota.

 

 

While he is not a Hall of Famer he did put up one of the great individual seasons of all time from a leadoff hitter in 2000. .355/.409/.541 slash line with 240 hits, 121 Runs, 39 2Bs, 6 3Bs, 25 HRs, 28 SBs and 100 RBIs. He also won a Gold Glove that season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you've got those guys that won't vote for someone because since no one has ever been unanimously elected, no one should ever be unanimously elected. There's a lot of politics involved. Writers will vote for guys because they were good to them, or won't vote for guys because they felt they were jerks. Things that have nothing to do with baseball often come into play. It's a flawed system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any voting system will be flawed/biased. Do you guys want a computer to determine who's in and who's out?

 

The determination of 'greatness' can be as confusing as 'most valuable player'. Each voter has his/her view on what greatness is.

 

If you listen to the Sabre guys, they can arrogantly make an assessment of who qualifies based on numbers alone, and they could do so without ever having watched a game. For others they use what they saw on the field plus whatever stats are relevant.

 

I've heard interviews of voters in the past who withheld a first-year votes for sure-fire electees because the guy spit in an umpire's face or didn't hustle on numerous occasions, or any number of other reasons. If they choose to withhold a first year vote as some sort of penalty what's the big deal?

 

It doesn't automatically mean they're a dumb voter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any voting system will be flawed/biased. Do you guys want a computer to determine who's in and who's out?

 

The determination of 'greatness' can be as confusing as 'most valuable player'. Each voter has his/her view on what greatness is.

 

If you listen to the Sabre guys, they can arrogantly make an assessment of who qualifies based on numbers alone, and they could do so without ever having watched a game. For others they use what they saw on the field plus whatever stats are relevant.

 

I've heard interviews of voters in the past who withheld a first-year votes for sure-fire electees because the guy spit in an umpire's face or didn't hustle on numerous occasions, or any number of other reasons. If they choose to withhold a first year vote as some sort of penalty what's the big deal?

 

It doesn't automatically mean they're a dumb voter.

 

We'll agree to disagree. The fact that a voter doesn't vote a guy in first-year because of the above reasons makes them a dumb voter, IMO. You're either good enough to get in or you aren't. Making guys wait for absurd reasons like the above examples is nothing more than the writer's letting everyone know who is in charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's ridiculous that a writer from the Kyodo News has a vote. Why wouldn't Vin Scully or Marty be allowed to vote, makes no sense.

 

Vin Scully and Marty Brenneman are not writers, and while I don't necessarily agree with the way the voting process is handled, it is what it is — up to the Baseball Writers Association of America.

 

If the Kyoto News has a regular baseball beat writer who's been on the job for 10+ years, then I think it's fair for he/she to have that vote. That's the qualifications for being a member of the BBWAA.

 

That said, the BBWAA probably needs to purge its membership rolls. No reason for there to be people at Golf Digest having a vote if they no longer cover the sport they're voting on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.