January 6, 2010 at 12:29 pm
And it's Andre Dawson . . .
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Check out my blog at https://pianorayk.wordpress.com/
January 6, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Alomar doesn't get in. Not sure that makes sense. I dislike a little that we somehow decide the HOF after a few years. If you don't think they belong in the first time, then should they reappear every year? Conversely, if they are locks, why do people not vote for them?
Bonds will be interesting. He deserves to be in there for his early numbers, heck, even his later ones since he had to perform.
January 6, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Steve Jones - Editor (1/6/2010)
Alomar doesn't get in. Not sure that makes sense.
Alomar barely missed getting in. He got 73.7% of the vote. He and Blyleven (74.2%) are as good as in next year.
Bonds will be interesting. He deserves to be in there for his early numbers, heck, even his later ones since he had to perform.
I agree -- Bonds will be an interesting case. Supposedly, voters are supposed to consider character as well as ability, but if that was the case, then Ty Cobb wouldn't be in Cooperstown.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Check out my blog at https://pianorayk.wordpress.com/
January 6, 2010 at 9:22 pm
Steve Jones - Editor (1/6/2010)
Alomar doesn't get in. Not sure that makes sense. I dislike a little that we somehow decide the HOF after a few years. If you don't think they belong in the first time, then should they reappear every year? Conversely, if they are locks, why do people not vote for them?Bonds will be interesting. He deserves to be in there for his early numbers, heck, even his later ones since he had to perform.
Every year for 14 years. Yeah that is a bit much. But then again, many of them don't get in for several years that probably should be there. Tough call.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
January 7, 2010 at 7:50 am
It's a little silly, and petty, by the writers. Is Alomar more deserving next year? I'm not sure the people voting are really doing a good job.
January 7, 2010 at 7:54 am
I agree. The numbers don't change from year one to year two. I fail to see the logic on how someone gets in in year two, three, five versus first time they are eligible. If one votes for players they should do their homework on researching their career. If they are worthy vote for them, if not don't.
January 7, 2010 at 9:23 am
Steve Jones - Editor (1/7/2010)
It's a little silly, and petty, by the writers. Is Alomar more deserving next year? I'm not sure the people voting are really doing a good job.
Some writers are fair and doing a good job. As a group, they have have some work to do. It seems as though some have a vendetta and others have other motives involved.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
January 7, 2010 at 9:51 am
I think lots do a good job. But there's no open-ness, or guidelines published. Each writer I hear talk about this on the radio uses a different set of rules. That seems to be a bit of an issue with me. I don't mind you expressing your reasoning or opinion, but I think every single person should have to publish their votes and reasoning.
January 7, 2010 at 10:18 am
A LONG time announcer for the Reds continues to make a point (I think it has some validitiy) that the people that vote now alot are somewhat new and maybe have not seen player X the prime of his career. Yes, you can look at stats but stats don't tell the entire story sometimes. His point was that maybe the radio and TV announcers should get to vote as alot of these people have a long tenure and have seen alot of these players play their entire career and really know if they are HOF material.
January 7, 2010 at 11:33 am
Markus (1/7/2010)
I agree. The numbers don't change from year one to year two. I fail to see the logic on how someone gets in in year two, three, five versus first time they are eligible. If one votes for players they should do their homework on researching their career. If they are worthy vote for them, if not don't.
This is pure speculation on my part, but . . .
HOF voting is entirely subjective. It's not like code where you can say "if hits > 3000 then HOF = true." Also, if I'm not mistaken, there's some degree of turnover among HOF voters. I believe all living HOF'ers get a vote, so if someone is elected each year, the voters change by default.
There are a lot of arguments among people (hey, look at this thread!) about who should and shouldn't get in. If voters change, then the opinions change.
Also, opinions can change over time. Case in point: when Pete Rose was first eligible, my opinion was, "how do you keep someone with 4000+ hits out?" Now it's "he's scum, and shouldn't be allowed into the Hall unless he has a ticket."
(I'm just using this as an example; the argument itself is another topic for another time.)
Like I said, this is just how I see it.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Check out my blog at https://pianorayk.wordpress.com/
January 7, 2010 at 11:38 am
I guess opinions can change, but I'd think that you would have a definite opinion right off about someone being worthy of the hall. That's why I'd like to see all votes published, and a justification from each person.
On controversial people, we should have guidelines about what the HOF means. Is it someone's life? Or their career in baseball? I don't think Rose should ever be allowed back in the game, or even recognized in a ceremony, but I think his career as a player should put him in the HOF. Just add him, no induction, no ceremony.
January 7, 2010 at 11:45 am
I don't think we will ever see a voters comments on why they vote the way they do.
On the Pete Rose topic (since you brought it up...). I tend to agree. His numbers as a player speak for themselves.... He holds 13 MLB records the biggest one is the 4,000+ hits which I just don't see anyone breaking. Put him in the HOF without a ceremony.
January 7, 2010 at 11:50 am
Actually, here's some fodder for discussion . . .
Discuss.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Check out my blog at https://pianorayk.wordpress.com/
January 7, 2010 at 11:51 am
Steve Jones - Editor (1/7/2010)
...On controversial people, we should have guidelines about what the HOF means. Is it someone's life? Or their career in baseball? I don't think Rose should ever be allowed back in the game, or even recognized in a ceremony, but I think his career as a player should put him in the HOF. Just add him, no induction, no ceremony.
Alomar - spitting is keeping him out
McGwire - alleged (strong likelihood) steroid use keeping him out
Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds- not eligible yet but will probably have the same problem as McGwire
Andy Pettit - probably will be allowed because he admitted use and the story was more or less forgotten
Rose - got caught betting - should be in the hall for baseball.
We are talking about players and their impact on the game measured by their statistics. Cowherd had an interesting remark this morning about it. Most guys in the hall are probably scum - we just didn't know about it. We are voting them in for what they did on the field but too often we let their off the field actions muddy the vote (severely paraphrased). He then compared that to Tiger Woods - we all thought he was a pretty clean cut guy, and now he is portrayed as scum because of some bad off the course decisions.
I agree with Steve, publish the vote and the justification for each vote. I think that would steer the HOF back to on-the-field activity v. overall person.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
January 7, 2010 at 12:05 pm
CirquedeSQLeil (1/7/2010)
Alomar - spitting is keeping him out
Actually, I understand that Alomar has since apologized, and the umpire who was the intended target has not only forgiven him, he has endorsed him for Cooperstown.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Check out my blog at https://pianorayk.wordpress.com/
Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 1,972 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply