November 30, 200619 yr What about Glavine when his time comes? YES, he has sustained over time and without looking his totals up, I believe will win his 300th game in '07. First ballot for me. Consummate professional and how many other pitchers, can anyone recall that has won nearly 300 games, with a FB possibly approaching 86-88 max, at most times, other than Maddux. If any young player, wanted to learn the art of "pitching" and not throwing/over-powering, Glavin would be a model along with Maddux.
November 30, 200619 yr I was too surprised, at Blyleven's loss total and remembered he wasn't always on teams, that had stellar records and his 287 wins, are that much more impressive. Hershiser was very good, had an amazing scoring streak but his win totals just don't qualify to me, in the modern time as being enough for HOF election. These two pitchers, are certainly an interesting debate. I believe that the 300 win qualifier will quickly become the 250 win qualifier.
November 30, 200619 yr I believe that the 300 win qualifier will quickly become the 250 win qualifier.Excellent point and gone are the days, of pitchers throwing nearly 300 innings, thus win totals are certainly going to be affected. 4-5 day rotations, eliminate additional chances to win and 250, might be the mark in the next 5-10 year totals, for current players with 8-10 years of service.
November 30, 200619 yr The article stated he should be in because writers are hypocrites. It did not say he deserved to be in. Its a tough time to be a voter. In order to not vote for Mac or Bonds, you are going to have to make an assumption without hard proof that they used illegal substances. While you may be , and most likely are, right you really do not know for sure. How do you balance that in your voting process? What illegal substances? What they took wasn't illegal then. How can we go back in history and punish somebody for doing something that wasn't illegal at the time, but became illegal later? I just don't think it's right. But what the writer was saying is, his numbers were HOF worthy in '98, so why not now? Bonds' trainer and all those aren't forced to testify and people applaud them for taking a stand. But whenever Mac refuses to testify, he's "without a doubt guilty" and labeled a bad guy. And the writer did say he deserves to be in. Look at the title "Go to the Hall, Mark McGwire." Which insists that he should be there.
November 30, 200619 yr The article stated he should be in because writers are hypocrites. It did not say he deserved to be in. Its a tough time to be a voter. In order to not vote for Mac or Bonds, you are going to have to make an assumption without hard proof that they used illegal substances. While you may be , and most likely are, right you really do not know for sure. How do you balance that in your voting process? The way I balance it is that they don't get my vote the first year. They get my vote in year 2.
November 30, 200619 yr The way I balance it is that they don't get my vote the first year. They get my vote in year 2. I don't understand this and maybe you can explain it to me. What's the difference in 1st year or 2nd year? If they're HOF worthy, then they're worthy, regardless of what year it is. I just haven't figured it out yet.
November 30, 200619 yr I don't understand this and maybe you can explain it to me. What's the difference in 1st year or 2nd year? If they're HOF worthy, then they're worthy, regardless of what year it is. I just haven't figured it out yet.My thoughts is, the prestige to be elected "First Ballot", as there are not many that get that accolade. It's usually reserved, for the upper echelon of HOF players....
November 30, 200619 yr My thoughts is, the prestige to be elected "First Ballot", as there are not many that get that accolade. It's usually reserved, for the upper echelon of HOF players.... Sorry, didn't know there were different levels in the HOF. :confused: I understand what you're saying. Just not sure I agree with it.
November 30, 200619 yr Author My thoughts is, the prestige to be elected "First Ballot", as there are not many that get that accolade. It's usually reserved, for the upper echelon of HOF players.... One of the things that drives me crazy is the unanimous selection. If I remember right there are very, very few who have been unanimous selections. But if you look at Ripken and Gwynn, how are they NOT on every single ballot somewhere in those 10 choices??????? And they probably will not be.
November 30, 200619 yr Sorry, didn't know there were different levels in the HOF. :confused: I understand what you're saying. Just not sure I agree with it.Not levels within the HOF itself, but prestige of being voted one of the best MLB players of all-time, thus making the first ballot....:thumb: One of the things that drives me crazy is the unanimous selection. If I remember right there are very, very few who have been unanimous selections. But if you look at Ripken and Gwynn, how are they NOT on every single ballot somewhere in those 10 choices??????? And they probably will not be. You're probably correct, that someone will leave Gwynn and Ripken, Jr off their ballots.
November 30, 200619 yr Not levels within the HOF itself, but prestige of being voted one of the best MLB players of all-time, thus making the first ballot....:thumb: I know that there aren't different "levels" in the HOF. I know what you're saying. But I thought being voted in the HOF meant you were one of the best of all time. I don't mean to sound like a pain. I'm just thinking out loud.
November 30, 200619 yr I know that there aren't different "levels" in the HOF. I know what you're saying. But I thought being voted in the HOF meant you were one of the best of all time. I don't mean to sound like a pain. I'm just thinking out loud.No problem, just responding to your questions and posts....:thumb: Understand your point, not how you got there that is important, but the fact you did get into the HOF is the ultimate goal....I think its used, more as a comparison/measuring method, to players that do make the HOF and then that discussion would include, out of the HOF players whom is the best or in what order.
November 30, 200619 yr No problem, just responding to your questions and posts....:thumb: Understand your point, not how you got there that is important, but the fact you did get into the HOF is the ultimate goal....I think its used, more as a comparison/measuring method, to players that do make the HOF and then that discussion would include, out of the HOF players whom is the best or in what order. :thumb:
November 30, 200619 yr It's almost as if Strike3 is reading my mind. Oh, my...:scared: Great minds, think alike....
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.