Greg Maddux won't be voted in unanimously

[M2]

The BBWAA needs to removed from the process. Personally I'd like to see a small group of gatekeepers appointed, kind of like a Supreme Court setup. I wouldn't put a lot of ex-players on it. If you don't have a Whizzer White or Bill Bradley type of brain, then no sale.

The HOF committee could put together a list of nominees each year and then people could come in and argue the case for those nominees. Televise the whole thing.

[BuckeyeRedleg]

The BBWAA needs to removed from the process. Personally I'd like to see a small group of gatekeepers appointed, kind of like a Supreme Court setup. I wouldn't put a lot of ex-players on it. If you don't have a Whizzer White or Bill Bradley type of brain, then no sale.

The HOF committee could put together a list of nominees each year and then people could come in and argue the case for those nominees. Televise the whole thing.

Great idea. This would be perfect.

[Raisor]

Anyone that first vote for Maddux should be mocked and then mocked again.

[Norm Chortleton]

The BBWAA needs to removed from the process. Personally I'd like to see a small group of gatekeepers appointed, kind of like a Supreme Court setup. I wouldn't put a lot of ex-players on it. If you don't have a Whizzer White or Bill Bradley type of brain, then no sale.

The HOF committee could put together a list of nominees each year and then people could come in and argue the case for those nominees. Televise the whole thing.

If you don't want sportswriters and broadcasters involved and you don't want former players involved, who exactly does that leave?

[RedsManRick]

The BBWAA needs to removed from the process. Personally I'd like to see a small group of gatekeepers appointed, kind of like a Supreme Court setup. I wouldn't put a lot of ex-players on it. If you don't have a Whizzer White or Bill Bradley type of brain, then no sale.

The HOF committee could put together a list of nominees each year and then people could come in and argue the case for those nominees. Televise the whole thing.

Right. But unfortunately I'm 99% sure that the committee would be comprised primarily of the types of guys who tend to be the most sanctimonious. It would basically be an extended veterans committee, putting a lot of emphasis on how the game has changed for the worse since their heyday and not fixing the basic issues.

[*BaseClogger*]

How about we just let Joe Posnanski decide. Does *anybody* dislike that guy?

[M2]

If you don't want sportswriters and broadcasters involved and you don't want former players involved, who exactly does that leave?

I don't want all of them involved, but the cream of the crop would be fine.

Right. But unfortunately I'm 99% sure that the committee would be comprised primarily of the types of guys who tend to be the most sanctimonious. It would basically be an extended veterans committee, putting a lot of emphasis on how the game has changed for the worse since their heyday and not fixing the basic issues.

Like I said, I don't want ex-players. What it should be is a group of baseball historians with analytical skills. This isn't a job for the meatheads. Avoid hive mind, overrated, egomaniacs like Bob Feller at all costs (he was awful). The electors should be people with a broad perspective. Players and beat writers generally don't have that.

[757690]

How about we just let Joe Posnanski decide. Does *anybody* dislike that guy?

[BluegrassRedleg]

At least one writer, Dodgers beat reporter Ken Gurnick, didn't vote for Maddux on his Hall of Fame ballot. Seems bad, right? It gets worse. His ballot has only Jack Morris. Wait til you hear his explanation:



http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/mlb/...&vkey=news_mlb

Embarrassing.

[wheels]

Anyone that first vote for Maddux should be mocked and then mocked again.

I mock this post for complete lack of sense.

[BuckeyeRedleg]

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/mlb/...&vkey=news_mlb

A great comment I found under that article. RCSanders hit the nail on the head:

What I dislike about the whole thing is that the writers attempt to use precedent and statistics - as if this were a court of law - only when it serves their argument while the rest of the time they rely on their own fanaticism and holier-than-thou opinions on morality to judge players. Many if not all of these voters started as real journalists where their job was to peddle the facts without bias. The entire structure of the HOF vote seems to have turned these professionals into no more than laymen arguing the merits of their own opinions on morality and nostalgia.

How to fix?:



-Make stricter voting standards

-Remove voters no longer associated with baseball

-Add an additional body of voters; like players or former players

if all else fails, blow the whole thing up and start over.

[Puffy]

I mock this post for complete lack of sense.

Excuse me Stewardess - I speak jive.

Raisor is saying he left his crayons on the train and Maddux stole them.

[wheels]

Excuse me Stewardess - I speak jive.

Raisor is saying he left his crayons on the train and Maddux stole them.

Winner!

[BluegrassRedleg]

"The passengers were very concerned."

[Raisor]

I mock this post for complete lack of sense.

I just read what I wrote.

Yeah, no clue.