Forget about the players accused of using steroids, I'm just talking about needing 75% to get in. Needing 5% to stay on in future ballots. "The holy experts", the baseball writers, doing the voting. What about letting former players, managers, owners, and such. Goose Gossage not getting again, nor Jack Morris, etc. Then let's not forget about Paul Ladewski, the writer from Daily Southtown, who submitted a blank hall of fame vote because he doesn't believe in letting ANY member receiving a unanimous vote. I'm not trying to make any one mad, it's just my opinion that baseball is screwed up in Every aspect of the game.
2007-01-09 06:53:40 · 11 answers · asked by jstj1234 1 in Sports ➔ Baseball
Really good answers people. Keep em coming.
2007-01-09 07:18:37 · update #1
yes it's a sham. Baseball sucks!!
2007-01-09 10:34:29 · answer #1 · answered by jp_457 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Goose Gossage deserves to go. And it's silly that some nut ball would submit a blank ballot just because he doesn't think anybody should be unanimous. It makes me wonder, thinking back on the careers of Willie Mays, Mantle, Ted Williams, Stan Musial, and other legends who played way before I was born, how any baseball writer could find the stats they put up undeserving of the hall. But isn't baseball a freak sport to begin with. Look who won the series this year. I'm a Cards fan, and I was overjoyed, but I would have thought the '04 team would have done it. But they were swept, and this team that squeaked into the post season won it all. What a fitting way to determine your glory in a crazy sport then by a crazy process.
The BCS on the otherhand...
Crap. Just Crap.
2007-01-09 12:25:06 · answer #2 · answered by punkkarrit182 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, as far as I am concerned, making the Hall of Fame in any sport should be as selective as possible. Any system is going to have its problems, but you need to take the bad with the good.
As far as the 5% rule, I think that's a good one. If a player doesn't recieve enough support to reach even a paltry 5% of the votes, then he doesn't deserve to be considered again. This frees up debate time for players who truly are getting snubbed year after year, like Goose Gossage. I mean, do you really want to hear about Jose Canseco's microscopic vote totals year in and year out for the next 14 years?
As far as submitting blank ballots just so no player gets in unanimously, I agree that that is Bulls***. That only hurts players like Gossage who deserve to be in the hall and need every vote that they can get. If you don't want someone to get in unanimously, then don't vote for them. I can understand not wanting to give someone the unprecedented honor of being elected by a unanimous vote, but don't hurt everyone by submitting a blank ballot.
As far as letting former players, managers, etc. They do, it's called the Veteran's Committee. They just have never managed to elect anyone yet.
2007-01-09 07:05:27 · answer #3 · answered by Bigfoot 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no, it's the baseball hall of fame, not the hall of really good. i'm a huge jack morris fan. hell, he had the most wins for any pitcher from 1980-1989, but he is not hall worthy. their is a veteran's committee which votes in players that did not make the writers election, every 2 years. hopefully when the vet committee meets again, ronnie santo will finally be enshrined. he is the greatest 3rd baseman not in the hall and it's a darn shame. goose should be in though, he'll get it next year with a weaker 1st year class than this 2007 class.
2007-01-09 06:59:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree that it is a sham. if it wasn't then Mattingly, Gossage and others would have made it. The writers are losing credibility. I'm also sure that a good number of them don't watch baseball on a regular basis. I am not at all a fan of the Hall of Fame voting. They need to get new writers who actually know the game, and are fans of the game.
2007-01-09 11:37:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
it really is a moot question on account that Pete is banned, and Barry isn't. The hall of repute shouldn't raise the ban, ever. they're the in consumer-friendly words ones with the authority to rule on the be counted. If i had a vote although, it might visit Bonds. Pete Rose wager on the end results of video games for the time of his taking section in and handling careers. The hall of repute cares very deeply about the integrity of the game so playing on MLB video games even as being energetic contained in the Majors is the only ingredient they received't tolerate.
2016-12-28 13:10:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only answer is a lot of these voters are simply bias towards certain players . There were 13 voters who actually thought Tony Gwynn did not deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. You have got to be kidding.
The reasoning for 75% is to make sure that they are selecting sound individuals for the Hall. You just can't have everyone and anyone getting in. The had to set a high bar.
2007-01-09 07:05:22 · answer #7 · answered by Shazam 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
oh you think that's bad? on the ballot there's a statment that tells you how you should vote. it talks about how you vote in based on stat's, intergity and the kind of person the player was (in other words if you did lots for the community or how you held yourself in public)
what i am getting at is this....and i know you've heard this before-many racist were voted in...on integrity alone lol....but a player like gossage isn't? anyway good question. it is a farce.
2007-01-09 07:11:22 · answer #8 · answered by LS 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's no more of a sham then the MVP voting. There all shams. They're popularity contests with the real deserving suffering.
2007-01-09 08:19:12 · answer #9 · answered by Oz 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What is even worse is the few sportswriters that turned in ballots with NO names on them..in my opinion they should NEVER EVER get another vote for the HOF
2007-01-09 08:58:44 · answer #10 · answered by nas88car300 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋