Quote:
Originally Posted by bn2cardz
Are you really replying to me? It sounds like you are trying to counter something I said, but yet nothing in your statement does counter me. They are their own stand alone thoughts that have nothing to do with what I said.
My point was that if someone gets an honor for doing a job that very few people even have the ability to maintain then I am not going to come along and say they don't deserve the honor.
If I got an honor at work of let's say "Employee of the year" (not really a thing at my job, just using it for an example), then I wouldn't really be happy if people from outside my industry started to say I didn't deserve it. Just let me have the honor and move on.
I don't mind trying to say you believe someone else deserves the honor, but I don't like trying to second guess someone else's decision to bestow an honor on someone else after the fact.
I love looking over player stats and researching them. But trying to say someone is worse than what others think seems like a negative approach to the conversation.
|
I'm sorry, but this reeks of 'everyone gets a trophy " to me. Players play the game, their statistics tell us how well they played it. For some guys to be in lowers the level for allowing future players. Just because some group made decisions in voting (or selection in the case of the Vet's committee) doesn't mean the rest of us are bound to approve of said choices.
If you make the HOF mean less by letting in lesser players, the "honor" as you put it, becomes less meaningful.