http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/201...t-not-to-vote/
I’d rather abstain than play judge and jury this year. The two most deserving players statistically of the 37 on the ballot are Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. Bonds was the best hitter I’ve seen. Clemens was the most dominant pitcher.
Both should be absolute locks to be first-ballot inductees.<snip>
But this morning, I was too torn to pull the lever.
/r/reds
Take his vote away.
I actually have a problem with this. Either be a Hall voter or give up your right. If you don't have the spine to vote for whom you think should be in, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
...the 2-2 to Woodsen and here it comes...and it is swung on and missed! And Tom Browning has pitched a perfect game! Twenty-seven outs in a row, and he is being mobbed by his teammates, just to the thirdbase side of the mound.
It's not about you, John.
His response was insane.
If he thinks they deserve to be in, vote for them. If not, don't vote.
He has no balls. But we know that.
Wuss.
“I don’t care,” Votto said of passing his friend and former teammate. “He’s in the past. Bye-bye, Jay.”
That's the easy way out. And also the weak way.
Just when are you going to decide? Be a man, John. State your opinion or get out of the way and give it to someone who will.
She used to wake me up with coffee ever morning
John Fayl.
Originally Posted by Raisor
Personally, I'd love it if all the voters abstained this time. Maybe it'll finally send a signal to the HoF to change their freaking rules. Put in players based on stats alone. Nothing else involved in the decision. If you want to put some comment about morality on their plaque, so be it. But let the performance on the field be the final and only determining factor in induction. Yes, that also means put Rose in there too. Ineligible by MLB or not, the Hall of Fame is a joke without these truly FAMEous players. (yes, I know it's spelled wrong) :O)
Of course in a perfect world, they'd take the writers out of the equation altogether. Let players, managers, gm's and current HoF'ers do the voting.
As someone who beleive that Pete Rose is clearly not HOF worthy, and neither are Bonds nor Clemens, I like it the way it is.
But people are entitled to their own opinion, and if they want to vote the cheaters in, so be it.
And a HOF without Rose is not a joke. It's a lot more classy to be sure.
What about Cobb? Or Hornsby? Gaylord Perry was a known cheater.
...the 2-2 to Woodsen and here it comes...and it is swung on and missed! And Tom Browning has pitched a perfect game! Twenty-seven outs in a row, and he is being mobbed by his teammates, just to the thirdbase side of the mound.
And again, you're basing your opinion solely on "character" issues. There are plenty of players in the hall who've broken mlb rules, mlb standards of character and such. It's all about where exactly do you draw that line? It's so abstract and moves so much over the course of time that it's a blurred wavy line at this point. My suggestion is to remove the line altogether and let it be about what happened on the diamond. Let the stats and the stats alone determine enshrinement.
And the hall would also be a lot more classy without wife beaters, alcoholics, drug users, racists, etc, etc, etc, etc. It's not a place to tour the moral character of the country...it's a baseball museum. That's it. At least that's how I view it.
Not really fair to a guy like Dale Murphy who is on the ballot for the last time.
I will say that abstaining is better than turning in a blank ballot.
All my posts are my opinion - just like yours are. If I forget to state it and you're too dense to see the obvious, look here!
Fair point...but then again, if it takes someone a dozen times in order to get in...are they REALLY Hall of Fame material? If he wasn't the first 10 times he was on the ballot...what makes him have the "right stuff" his final time? I'm not saying he's not worthy, my comment isn't about Dale in particular. Just a general comment about putting guys in at the last possible moment. I get it that not everybody is a first ballot nominee. Some guys will get bumped a year or two because some slam-dunk guy shows up on the ballot for the first time. But after 8 or 10 tries, if you're not in yet...you probably SHOULDN'T be in.
Nah, it just speaks to the psychology of humans waiting till the last possible moment to do some things. I agree that someone that doesn't get in till the 15th try probably isn't of the same tier as someone who got in on their first couple years of eligibility.
But as long as there are 15 years of eligibility you can figure on guys sneaking in at the last minute, which on the whole, isn't a bad thing to me.
I have no idea, but I bet there are a solid group of guys who have been selected from their 9th year on the ballot on...
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote