TakeYouToTasker

You're a clever c*cksucker. https://youtu.be/u4D3UdxM3OU

No, the answer is to understand and respect that those who have votes have different motivations and criteria when casting their ballots. There is no standardized baseline testing for "what is a hall of famer". The Hall has been asked this question many times, and has always deferred to the writers and the process. The process is not broken. Ken Griffey Jr. was elected into the Hall of Fame, on his first ballot, receiving the highest percentage of the vote ever.

Babe Ruth received 95.1% of the vote, Ty Cobb got 98.2%. Cy Young didn't receive the 75% necessary until the second HOF class was announced, and even then only received 76.1% of votes. 9 time ERA champion Lefty Grove received only 76.4% of votes. Joe DiMaggio received 88.8% Ted Williams received 93.4% Willie Mays garnered 94.7% of all votes.

Clemens was always able to back up his mouth. There are no shortage of stories about him in the Hub. Harris didn't go after Clemens because he was afraid to go after Clemens. Now, from the safety of his rocking chair, he's mouthing off like a tough guy.

In yours, and 99.3% of the HOF voters, opinions. 3 voters disagreed. And, as I said, in my opinion it's not about Griffey. It's about the game of baseball and the Hall of Fame as an institution. In my opinion, if Bonds and Clemens aren't elected, then no one else deserves to be.

Yes there is. It's the reason players are voted in rather than appointed. 99.3% of voters felt Griffey should have been a first ballot guy. .7% did not. The .7% is an absolutely miniscule minority, but they are entitled to those opinions, and have earned the privilege of voting for Hall of Fame induction. If I had a ballot, I wouldn't have voted for Griffey. My ballot would have had only two names on it: Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens And I wouldn't cast a vote for any other player until those two were elected.

Incorrect. The answer is "absolutely".

Fisk !@#$ed with Rice.

Someone always has to be the best player not to be in. Murphy is a pretty good line in the sand. I'm a life long, die hard, Sox fan. As a kid I used to sneak into the park with frequency. No one !@#$ed with Roger. Well, Rice sometimes, but Rice was a lunatic. Roger would have murdered Piazza.

"Baseball is the only field of endeavor where a man can succeed three times out of ten and be considered a good performer." Ted Williams

Yeah, that's the worst of it so far.

"Doyouknowdoyouknowdoyouknow?!?"

Clemens would have beaten his ass.

I also love the fact that he looks a little bit like Spike Lee playing his "Mars Blackmon" character in the old Air Jordan commercials when he wears glasses.

We all know what Tyrod's on field tangibles are, and what he needs to work on. The most impressive thing that Tyrod did all year was to extract Jordan Mills from a scrum in the second half of the Jets game. What he demonstrated, in that moment, is not only that he is able to lead, but that he commands the respect of his teammates and makes them willing to follow him. That's something that almost never can be taught, and he has it. While it's not always necessary to being a great quarterback, it always lends a huge hand towards that end.

Tomlin was not a Rooney Rule interview. His interview was scheduled after the Steelers had already satisfied the Rooney Rule.

The Rooney Rule doesn't break that cycle at all. The Rooney Rule doesn't force, or even motivate, a hire. And it doesn't bump guys like Mularkey off the carousel in favor of minorities. All the Rooney Rule does is give lip service to minority candidates that may, or may not, be qualified for head coaching positions.

The Rooney Rule exists because Mike Mularkey apparently interviews very well? Talk about non-sequiturs...

The only reason I've ever heard given for these omissions, is that writers know the guy is going to get in with or without their vote, and given the crowding on the ballot these days, and the fact that they can only vote for 10 players, they use that spot to give a vote to a player they feel is deserving who needs more help than someone who they know will get more than 90% of the vote. Clemens and Bonds received almost 50% of the vote this time around, and several writers have written articles about "why they changed their minds, and voted for Clemens and Bonds", so I'd say that yes, the winds are changing for them.

It's certainly poor management.

Why?

I can't imagine any scenario in which this is a strong strategic ploy for Putin. Chinese relations with Pyongyang have become strained recently over the domestic "disappearance" of North Korea's abasador to China, whom China apparently had a strong functional relationship with. It isn't China either. I lean strong toward "fizzle" as well.

And a dog on the roof of your car? And binders full of women?

Do you know what they were protesting?

Proof by Assertion