TakeYouToTasker Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 OK, I'll ask again, are any of those legit reasons to not vote for the best? (Hint...the answer is "no")Incorrect. The answer is "absolutely". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 OK, I'll ask again, are any of those legit reasons to not vote for the best? (Hint...the answer is "no") The answer is absolutely not. There was literally no reason for anyone not to vote for his admission. Unanimous votes should not happen often, but if there was ever a case for a unanimous vote, Ken Griffey Jr., was it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) The answer is absolutely not. There was literally no reason for anyone not to vote for his admission. Unanimous votes should not happen often, but if there was ever a case for a unanimous vote, Ken Griffey Jr., was it. 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. Edited January 8, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 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. Shouldn't the voting for an individual be based on said individual's credentials and not based on whether or not others have/have not been voted in? I certainly think so. This isn't about Bonds or Clemens. It's about Griffey. And not voting for him to be a first ballot hall of famer, based on his stats/career, is unanimously asinine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 One of the cooler sports moments in history: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted January 8, 2016 Author Share Posted January 8, 2016 One of the cooler sports moments in history: Absolutely! Senior had to be one proud dad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Shouldn't the voting for an individual be based on said individual's credentials and not based on whether or not others have/have not been voted in? I certainly think so. This isn't about Bonds or Clemens. It's about Griffey. And not voting for him to be a first ballot hall of famer, based on his stats/career, is unanimously asinine. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordio Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) Clemens would have beaten his ass. I heard an interview with Lenny Harris(bench player for the Mets at the time & pretty tough bad ass) years later say his biggest regret in his life was not throwing a haymaker at Clemens charging the mound from the bench. Clemens was a bully & my guess is like most bullies Harris would of cold cocked him & Clemens would of ran behind one of his tougher teammates. F&ck that piece of sh&t. Edited January 8, 2016 by Gordio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 I heard an interview with Lenny Harris(bench player for the Mets at the time & pretty tough bad ass) years later say his biggest regret in his life was not throwing a haymaker at Clemens charging the mound from the bench. Clemens was a bully & my guess is like most bullies Harris would of cold cocked him & Clemens would of ran behind one of his tougher teammates. F&ck that piece of sh&t. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Incorrect. The answer is "absolutely". Apparently our understanding of the word legitimate differs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Apparently our understanding of the word legitimate differs. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 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. So ... the answer is obviously to keep voting stupidly. Obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Clemens would have beaten his ass. Roid rage? Keep 'em out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 So ... the answer is obviously to keep voting stupidly. Obviously. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 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. Okay, let me ask you ... can you come up with one logical reason for someone to NOT vote for Ken Griffey as a first ballot hall of famer based on what he did (and didn't do) throughout his MLB career? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Okay, let me ask you ... can you come up with one logical reason for someone to NOT vote for Ken Griffey as a first ballot hall of famer based on what he did (and didn't do) throughout his MLB career? See, that's your criterion. That's your view point of what the ballot should be used for. I happen to believe that the game of baseball and the Hall of Fame as an institution are bigger and more important than Ken Griffey Jr. As long as the best hitter and best pitcher of the last 50 years are not in the Hall of Fame, then no one else should be inducted either; because no one on the ballot were better than them. If they are the baseline for exclusion, then no one else is qualified. Clemens and Bonds would be the only two names on my ballot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 See, that's your criterion. That's your view point of what the ballot should be used for. I happen to believe that the game of baseball and the Hall of Fame as an institution are bigger and more important than Ken Griffey Jr. As long as the best hitter and best pitcher of the last 50 years are not in the Hall of Fame, then no one else should be inducted either; because no one on the ballot were better than them. If they are the baseline for exclusion, then no one else is qualified. Clemens and Bonds would be the only two names on my ballot. Well if they both didn't cheat; then lie about cheating; then lie more about cheating .... they'd have been first ballot guys, too ... and likely close to unanimous. But they did. They don't belong there. Just like Rose doesn't. It's called integrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) Well if they both didn't cheat; then lie about cheating; then lie more about cheating .... they'd have been first ballot guys, too ... and likely close to unanimous. But they did. They don't belong there. Just like Rose doesn't. It's called integrity. Ah, you're going to moralize. And you're going to do so without any convictions, suspensions, or positive tests. And then you're going to whitewash and sanitize the entire history of the game, and pretend that the Hall of Fame is not packed with cheaters, psychopaths, and wife beaters. Gambling, and "shaving" were rampant in the game prior to Curt Flood winning his law suit. Players earning were usually built around a series of escalator clauses, and they used to help each other reach those escalator clauses by hanging pitches intentionally, and allowing the opposing players to reach base and score runs. Games were often throw to allow a pitcher to get a much needed win. Gambling was so rampant within the game that even the World Series was very publicly thrown (an event which you obviously know about). That gambling never went away, either. Troops of young ultracompetitive millionaires traveling the country gamble on everything. They absolutely do bet on baseball. They're ust much smarter about it standing in the shadow of Rose, and baseball doesn't look to hard unless something is egregious. Most players in the early 1900's, right as the game was coming out of the dead ball era took a "muscle tonic" that was actually horse testosterone. The "steroid era" actually started in the mid 60's, which was when they were introduced into locker rooms; the difference being that guys didn't weight train back then, so they didn't see the same sorts of results. However they absolutely took substances that are banned in today: tons of stimulants, which they took "to improve their performance on the field". By most reports, the players of the 1990's and aughts overwhelmingly used PEDs. There are already, by direct admission from Hall of Famers, PED users in the Hall. So you want to moralize, and make it about something other than baseball. I don't. I insist that the Hall of Fame be about baseball as it always has. A Hall of Fame without Clemens and without Bonds isn't a Hall of Fame, and if they are the benchmark for exclusion, then no one else deserves to be in either. Edited January 8, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 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. pigheadedness does not equal legitimate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Dale Murphy's career stats were borderline HOF worthy at best, in my opinion. Lifetime .265 batting average with less than 400 HRs isn't going to cut it. He had the misfortune of playing the prime of his career in a crappy team during the dead ball era. From 80-87 he was one of the best and most consistent players in the league, but the numbers from those years don't compare to what guys put up in the 90s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts