2007-01-13 03:56:24 · 11 answers · asked by smitty 7 in Sports ➔ Baseball
YOU ALL DON'T KNOW THE GAME BECAUSE YOU ARE STILL MISSING THE POINT.
2007-01-13 05:11:11 · update #1
TO KEITH (MY MAIN MAN FROM BOXING YAHOO) AND VIPHOCKEY KNOW/UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM TALKING AND THEY KNOW THE GAME. YOU PEOPLE IN BASEBALL YAHOO NEED TO LEARN THE GAME. COME TO BOXING AND LEARN SOMETHING. WHERE IS MICK AND THE REST OF YOU ALL'S SO-CALLED "EXPERTS"?
2007-01-13 15:27:31 · update #2
GOOD ANSWER TWEETY!!!
2007-01-14 01:34:36 · update #3
Actually they got possibly too high a % if you look back over the years and see the %'s that others have gotten. To suggest Cal Ripken by way of vote was the 2nd best player in the history of the game would be terribly incorrect. But he did get the second highest % of votes in the history of voting for the Hall of Fame. Same thing applies to Gywnn, he actually got a higher % than Babe Ruth. Clearly nobody with a sense of baseball history would argue that Gywnn was a better ballplayer than the legendary Babe. No player in the history of the Hall of Fame vote has been elected unanimously and it would be shocking if in my lifetime anyone ever is. Both players elected earned the right to be elected but neither did anything worthy of being the first unanimous voted in player, in fact neither actually did enough to earn a higher % than some of the previous players. They were simply benefactors of the steriod scandal and a lot of voters (although possibly misguided) tried to deliver a message to the game.
2007-01-13 05:53:18 · answer #1 · answered by viphockey4 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are several hundred writers who vote for the HOF.
Each year, a few of them will deliberately leave certain obvious shoo-ins off their ballot, for the purpose of preventing a unanimous selection.
Writers figure if guys like Babe Ruth, Walter Johnson and Ty Cobb weren't elected unanimously, then no one else should be. This is why guys whom you'd think would get 100% of the votes, end up not doing so (guys like Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Tom Seaver, etc).
At the time of his retirement as a player, there was much speculation that Pete Rose might be a unanimous selection. Of course, that never happened either.
People shouldn't make too big a deal out of non-unanimous selections... the reasons for it are obvious.
2007-01-14 00:21:14 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know. It is because it was universally agreed by nearly all who follow baseball that Ripken and Gwynn were Hall of Famers when they retired five years ago.
What is not being emphasized enough is why isn't Goose Gossage, Bert Blyleven, Jack Morris, Jim Rice, and Andre Dawson in the Hall of Fame? These men are almost as well-deserving as the two that got in.
2007-01-13 15:41:00 · answer #3 · answered by davester1970 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Smitty I can only site one writers reason. His reason for not submitting a vote was because he was honoring the first five hall of famers. His reasoning being that if he doesn't hand in a vote then it is impossible for anyone to get elected unanimously.
2007-01-13 19:46:49 · answer #4 · answered by gman 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The issue is that the voters for the Hall of Fame are very reluctant to give out unanimous votes for players, since they aren't baseball gods or something. So some voters purposely don't vote for them just so they won't be voted in unanimously.
yea, it's overblown, but it's also stupid not to vote for someone just so it won't be unanimous.
2007-01-13 12:03:28 · answer #5 · answered by Matthew P 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I do not believe it is being over-emphasized. If there are two ballplayers from my lifetime that deserved induction, those two did. Too often the voters try to make political statements or try to show how "tough" they are, or simply want to get on national radio or TV for an interview so they make insane votes.
The voter that entered his ballot blank should cause the rules to be changed so that blank ballots do not count----they do not count in normal elections, why should they here?
2007-01-13 12:04:24 · answer #6 · answered by jpbofohio 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because it means someone with a vote, who supposedly knows baseball, DIDN'T vote for them. I would love to hear an argument that either of those men does not belong in the Hall of Fame, other than the one guy who won't vote for anyone from the 'steroids era'.
2007-01-13 12:27:18 · answer #7 · answered by dentroll 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Nolan Ryan deserved 100% as well
2007-01-13 12:10:42 · answer #8 · answered by GB 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Probably because the people doing the complaining don't really have lives.
No one has ever been elected unanimously. I doubt that anyone ever will.
2007-01-13 14:38:35 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
i dont know maybe because theese great players deserve a 100% vote but i know what those writers are thinking why put a vote in for somebody who will get in anyway why not put one in for someone with less of a chance like mattingly
2007-01-13 12:01:47 · answer #10 · answered by Mr. E 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋