- This topic has 89 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 5 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I like the baseball lives concept also. Torre, Mattingly, and Baker would be deserving. Actually I think Mattingly is deserving from just his playing career. As a fan of 1980’s baseball I thought the three best hitters of that decade were Tony Gwynn, Wade Boggs, and Don Mattingly.
My latest: "Scott Rolen, the Hall of Fame, and My Introduction to Advanced Defensive Metrics" – including bits from my conversation with the Future Hall of Famer. https://t.co/B8VVVbEjUO
— Ryan M. Spaeder (@theaceofspaeder) December 18, 2020
Surprising progress report from the unofficial ballot counters…
Year over year tracking through 70 ballots for Schilling, Bonds (Clemens is similar), Vizquel, and Rolen.
The four top returning candidates (Schilling, Bonds, Clemens, Vizquel) continue to run behind last year's pace. pic.twitter.com/EosHUnW1RW
— Ryan Thibodaux (@NotMrTibbs) December 28, 2020
This guy waited for 10 years to become eligible, just to cast a blank ballot.
https://t.co/zCEG3rA9vG
This needs to be said again and again: The Hall of Fame is a baseball museum. A baseball museum. It's not a house of the holy.— Buster Olney (@Buster_ESPN) January 3, 2021
Ken Rosenthal is really frustrated with weary of all the ambiguities in the Hall of Fame voting process.
From the column linked above: pic.twitter.com/388NyEbdTT
— Ryan Thibodaux (@NotMrTibbs) January 5, 2021
Rosenthal is overthinking it and seems to be a bit dramatic to me. If certain voters want to exclude certain players because of perceived or real character or cheating issues then they should have the right to do so.
To me, there’s a difference between character issues that impact the game, and character issues that don’t. Cheaters like Bonds and Clemens forfeited their right to the HOF when they knowingly did things that aided their performance and gave them an advantage. Similar to McGwire and Sosa. Doesn’t mean they weren’t fun to watch or great players.
“Character issues” such as political views on either side should have zero impact on a baseball Hall of Fame. They may make you a doofus or even a bad person, but it’s silly to say that because one person voiced their views on something and another didn’t, they should be left out of a museum of the game’s great players.
Not on the ballot, but should be…
Latest in The Outsiders: I think Andruw Jones and Jim Edmonds both belong in the Hall of Fame. And I'm not sure I buy the argument that Jones' case is better. https://t.co/kWK2UjHYQu
— Joe Posnanski (@JPosnanski) January 6, 2021
Those that used PEDs not only cheated to make themselves better but they cheated all the honest players. That was worse than Rose’s offense.
Bonds and Clemens never!! Its the Hall of FAME. IMO by letting those in that gained fame by cheating is a slap in the face to all the respected HOFers. Put the cheaters in the Hall of SHAME.
On the earlier post, I have sympathy for Rosenthal, because he is among the subset of Hall voters who:
1) Put great thought into their vote
2) Explain it publiclyBut he also takes a lot of heat in social media because of #2 and because he is a high profile individual.
IMO, the Hall of Fame could take some heat off the writers by clarifying the voting guidelines, not unlike what was done in this thread. But they refuse to do so.
Its not about guidelines. It should be about fairness and right and wrong.
Who gets to decide what’s fair or right and wrong? Are steroids more performance enhancing than greenies, which were widely available as early as the 1940s? What about guys who probably did steroids who never got caught?
That’s what guidelines are for. We can never know who really was or wasn’t honest about the way they played the game, but if the HOF made it clearer (such as a positive PED test bars you or maybe connection via grand jury testimony of involvement) it would clear up some of the confusion.
14NyquisT said:
It should be about fairness and right and wrong.
In MY opinion as to right and wrong…
This status report suggests 2022 could be Rolen’s year…
Fun fact: Scott Rolen, Todd Helton, and Billy Wagner are all exactly 20% above where they were at the 130 ballot mark last year.
Rolen: 48.5% -> 68.5%
Helton: 35.4% -> 55.4%
Wagner: 31.5% -> 51.5%— Ryan Thibodaux (@NotMrTibbs) January 11, 2021
Since 2005, the BBWAA has been cornered into the position of serving as cover for MLB, HOF in determining character. It's a really bad place for journalists to be, as human shields for two private companies.
— Buster Olney (@Buster_ESPN) January 22, 2021
Agreed. The HOF and MLB should set the standards and disqualify those who don’t meet it before voting starts.
This baseball writer is an idiot and a coward. Then again, maybe he isn’t an idiot, after all. There was a reason he remained anonymous – his ballot is an embarrassment.
Ballot #164 is from a voter who wishes to remain anonymous. This is the second Jeff Kent-only ballot of the cycle. We are not able to reveal gained or lost votes, if any, on anonymous ballots.
In the Tracker's anonymous section: https://t.co/cVpo9e9n0y pic.twitter.com/lRl9rdpd1o
— Ryan Thibodaux (@NotMrTibbs) January 24, 2021
For the first time ever, the results of the @officialBBWAA Hall of Fame ballot will be announced live from Cooperstown, right here in the Plaque Gallery of the @baseballhall. Tune into @MLBNetwork tomorrow (Tuesday) at 6 pm ET, with coverage beginning at 3 pm ET. pic.twitter.com/qFh7vCxGlF
— Jon Shestakofsky (@Shesta_HOF) January 26, 2021
This baseball writer is an idiot and a coward. Then again, maybe he isn’t an idiot, after all. There was a reason he remained anonymous – his ballot is an embarrassment.
Is the embarrassment that this voter only voted for one player or that he did it anonymously? Because if I am being honest there aren’t many players on that list I would vote for. I would consider Rolen, Helton, Wagner, and maybe Kent. None of them would be locks for me but that is just my opinion.
Voting for Kent only is a joke. There is no way he is among the top eligible players, as the overall vote will confirm.
Last year, Kent came in 12th. Two went in, so not including the new players on the ballot, he is no better than 10th.
The voter probably knew that he would get a lot of grief, so is hiding. It he submits that kind of ballot, he should be man (or woman) enough to explain.
I believe that a Hall vote is such a special privilege and should be taken seriously.
I believe that a Hall vote is such a special privilege and should be taken seriously.
As do I. There should be a committee that polices this sort of thing. You submit a joke ballot and you should have to face the possible loss of your voting privilege. At the very least they should have to explain to someone what valid reason they had to vote the way they did.
No one goes in. Schilling may have missed his best chance. Rolen improved to 52.9%. (And yes, Jeff Kent finished a distant 10th.)
Here is the complete 2021 BBWAA Hall of Fame vote: pic.twitter.com/oA73SLQ6NE
— Mark Feinsand (@Feinsand) January 26, 2021
The “blank ballot” debate is an interesting one because they lower the chance of all candidates to get in. (75% of all ballots cast is needed.)
What is your take?
There were 14 blank ballots for the HOF voting this year 😲 pic.twitter.com/bWqSXOaUKj
— FOX Sports: MLB (@MLBONFOX) January 26, 2021
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.