Register now to remove this ad

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 105

Thread: 2019 HOF ballot

  1. #16
    Super Moderator Jasonbay44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    18,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellhorn04 View Post
    With Schilling I think the personal dislike factor is working against him big time. Which is dead wrong of course.
    Yup. Its a joke. Its similar to the NFL hall of fame where they had a clear vendetta against T.O, and despite him having arguably the best stats of all time for a WR not named Jerry Rice, he had to wait two years just become some voters can't get over themselves.

  2. #17
    Super Moderator Jasonbay44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    18,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Northern Star View Post
    I'm a big fan of Ankiel, but I seriously question why the committee decided to put him and Darren Oliver on the ballot. Their stats aren't even close to HOF. Gotta be kidding me with this bullshit.
    The Ankiel story is a great one, and I'm a fan of him and his comeback as well, but him being on HOF ballot is a joke lol.He didn't even get 500 hits or 80 homers for his career, and his pitching stats obviously aren't very impressive and we all know that story. I don't even remotely understand this one

    And Darren Oliver lol... I can't think of anything noteworthy about him besides the fact he played a ridiculously long time and was always surprised to see him on another team every year... his career reminds me of Fernando Rodney to some extent, but at least Rodney has some historic seasons under his belt and was considered a good closer for at least some of the teams he played for.

  3. #18
    Deity Kimmi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    26,666
    Quote Originally Posted by Northern Star View Post
    In what sense?
    The biggest issue is with the players staying on the ballot for 10 years (used to be 15 years). My question is, if a player is not worthy of a HOF vote in year one, why does that change in years 2-10? A player is either HOF worthy or he's not. The passage of a few more years should not change any player's worthiness.

    Also, how is it that voters are allowed to vote or not vote someone in based on whether they like the person or not? Schilling's percentage actually went down from one year to the next, after he ran his mouth about a bunch of stuff. I understand that people don't like what he has to say, but that should not affect his HOF votes. Changing a vote because of something he said is just plain wrong.

  4. #19
    "Just one more thing..." Northern Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    12,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Jasonbay44 View Post
    The Ankiel story is a great one, and I'm a fan of him and his comeback as well, but him being on HOF ballot is a joke lol.He didn't even get 500 hits or 80 homers for his career, and his pitching stats obviously aren't very impressive and we all know that story. I don't even remotely understand this one

    And Darren Oliver lol... I can't think of anything noteworthy about him besides the fact he played a ridiculously long time and was always surprised to see him on another team every year... his career reminds me of Fernando Rodney to some extent, but at least Rodney has some historic seasons under his belt and was considered a good closer for at least some of the teams he played for.
    I recently read Ankiel's memoir and it was interesting, but I don't think Tim Brown did a good enough job of bringing the story to life and giving us enough insight. A lot of it was just telling us the same things multiple times to pad the book to acceptable length.
    Priorities:
    1. Yankees lose
    2. Red Sox win

    Quote Originally Posted by joeycaps View Post
    So shut up because you have no idea on what you say on anything as evidence of some of your ridiculous posts.

  5. #20
    "Just one more thing..." Northern Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    12,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Kimmi View Post
    The biggest issue is with the players staying on the ballot for 10 years (used to be 15 years). My question is, if a player is not worthy of a HOF vote in year one, why does that change in years 2-10? A player is either HOF worthy or he's not. The passage of a few more years should not change any player's worthiness.

    Also, how is it that voters are allowed to vote or not vote someone in based on whether they like the person or not? Schilling's percentage actually went down from one year to the next, after he ran his mouth about a bunch of stuff. I understand that people don't like what he has to say, but that should not affect his HOF votes. Changing a vote because of something he said is just plain wrong.
    One way to solve the first issue is to raise the percentage required to stay on the ballot. I mentioned it earlier in the thread, what is it now, 5%? Complete joke.

    The second issue cannot be policed in any way that I can think of. You'll always have bias. That's at least partly why no one's got in on a unanimous vote. And a few years back, I remember a writer leaving a shoo-in off the ballot and gave some garbage reason about forgetting about him or something. Should have his vote taken away.
    Priorities:
    1. Yankees lose
    2. Red Sox win

    Quote Originally Posted by joeycaps View Post
    So shut up because you have no idea on what you say on anything as evidence of some of your ridiculous posts.

  6. #21
    Deity Kimmi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    26,666
    Quote Originally Posted by Northern Star View Post
    One way to solve the first issue is to raise the percentage required to stay on the ballot. I mentioned it earlier in the thread, what is it now, 5%? Complete joke.

    The second issue cannot be policed in any way that I can think of. You'll always have bias. That's at least partly why no one's got in on a unanimous vote. And a few years back, I remember a writer leaving a shoo-in off the ballot and gave some garbage reason about forgetting about him or something. Should have his vote taken away.
    My thing is, why does any player need to be on the ballot more than one year? When a player becomes eligible, he's either voted in or he's done.

    How is a player not good enough to be in the HOF for the first 5 years of eligibility, then is suddenly good enough in his 6th year? What has changed?

  7. #22
    Deity
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    41,320
    In
    Quote Originally Posted by Northern Star View Post
    I recently read Ankiel's memoir and it was interesting, but I don't think Tim Brown did a good enough job of bringing the story to life and giving us enough insight. A lot of it was just telling us the same things multiple times to pad the book to acceptable length.
    I remember Ankiel as pitcher his rookie year before all the psychological issues set in. On MLB Tonight one night, Tim Kurkjian actually said “If Rick Ankiel doesn’t cut it as a pitcher, he can still have a career as an outfielder because he’s such a good hitter.”

    How prophetic was that? Maybe Kurkjian needs to be in the Hall of Fame...

  8. #23
    "Just one more thing..." Northern Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    12,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Kimmi View Post
    My thing is, why does any player need to be on the ballot more than one year? When a player becomes eligible, he's either voted in or he's done.

    How is a player not good enough to be in the HOF for the first 5 years of eligibility, then is suddenly good enough in his 6th year? What has changed?
    I see your point, but I'm ok with them not being one and done.
    Priorities:
    1. Yankees lose
    2. Red Sox win

    Quote Originally Posted by joeycaps View Post
    So shut up because you have no idea on what you say on anything as evidence of some of your ridiculous posts.

  9. #24
    Super, Duper Moderator Youk Of The Nation's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    19,286
    People change. The same voters now are not all the same voters as 10 years ago. One and done would mean guys who deserve to be in the hall of fame being left out because that particular year's crop of voters might have a problem with them, either personality-wise or based on their interpretation of eligibility. Martinez isn't in yet because some people think that DHs don't belong in the HOF. But his percentage increases each year because of new voters who have more non-Martinez seasons to reflect on and realize he was a very good player. Guys might be left out because some voters think that their stats didn't put them above anyone else, but the longer they're out of baseball, the more seasons there are without them to compare their performance to.

    I think the problem is voting. It shouldn't be sportswriters, it should be a committee made up of the same number of people that includes all living HOFers and a selection of current and former players and managers selected by a vote of the living HOFers.
    Quote Originally Posted by YANKEESRULE View Post
    Yea got hand it to the Sox, they just could not go queitly into the night. Well, they are just post-poning the inevitable.
    - From the 2004 ALCS Game 4 Gamethread. A reminder that no game is over until the final out is recorded, and things will always get better. Misspellings unchanged as a reminder that Yankees fans are just terrible.

  10. #25
    Deity Kimmi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    26,666
    Quote Originally Posted by Youk Of The Nation View Post
    People change. The same voters now are not all the same voters as 10 years ago. One and done would mean guys who deserve to be in the hall of fame being left out because that particular year's crop of voters might have a problem with them, either personality-wise or based on their interpretation of eligibility. Martinez isn't in yet because some people think that DHs don't belong in the HOF. But his percentage increases each year because of new voters who have more non-Martinez seasons to reflect on and realize he was a very good player. Guys might be left out because some voters think that their stats didn't put them above anyone else, but the longer they're out of baseball, the more seasons there are without them to compare their performance to.

    I think the problem is voting. It shouldn't be sportswriters, it should be a committee made up of the same number of people that includes all living HOFers and a selection of current and former players and managers selected by a vote of the living HOFers.
    Everything you're saying here is part of the problem with the HOF voting. IMO, the players who get in the HOF should be no brainers. Therefore, if the group of voters this year doesn't think someone's good enough to get in, then they shouldn't get in.

    If they vote against someone because they don't like that player, then that's a whole other problem.

    I'll say it again with all sincerity. Let the stat geeks vote.

  11. #26
    Deity Bellhorn04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Halifax
    Posts
    46,973
    It is what it is. Like so many things in our lives, it'll never live up to what we think it should be.

  12. #27
    "Just one more thing..." Northern Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    12,155
    I know you can't set absolute thresholds for stats that guarantee HOF status, but that would make things easier in terms of should a guy be in or not. I fear that over time so many undeserving players have been elected that it's lowered the bar. HOF should be for undisputed great players, not very good players.

    (as close to undisputed as you can get, anyway).
    Priorities:
    1. Yankees lose
    2. Red Sox win

    Quote Originally Posted by joeycaps View Post
    So shut up because you have no idea on what you say on anything as evidence of some of your ridiculous posts.

  13. #28
    Deity Bellhorn04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Halifax
    Posts
    46,973
    Quote Originally Posted by Northern Star View Post
    I know you can't set absolute thresholds for stats that guarantee HOF status, but that would make things easier in terms of should a guy be in or not. I fear that over time so many undeserving players have been elected that it's lowered the bar. HOF should be for undisputed great players, not very good players.

    (as close to undisputed as you can get, anyway).
    If it was only for undisputed great players, there might be some long stretches with no one getting in. Some people would say that's boring.

    I get your point, but no matter how it was there would be something to complain about.

  14. #29
    "Just one more thing..." Northern Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    12,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellhorn04 View Post
    If it was only for undisputed great players, there might be some long stretches with no one getting in. Some people would say that's boring.

    I get your point, but no matter how it was there would be something to complain about.
    Very true.
    Priorities:
    1. Yankees lose
    2. Red Sox win

    Quote Originally Posted by joeycaps View Post
    So shut up because you have no idea on what you say on anything as evidence of some of your ridiculous posts.

  15. #30
    Super Moderator Jasonbay44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    18,784
    Hey, at least its not like the Basketball Hall of Fame where they kind of just throw everybody in.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •