Will ken Griffey jr be the first unanimous hall of famer?

[Bored5000]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

I don't get it either, but the mentality seems to be if Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, etc didn't get 100% of the vote than no one should. There will always be a few hold outs. I also agree these people who hold out should not be allowed to vote.

The problem with that is how would you decide what players are so obviously Hall of Fame worthy that someone should lose their vote for not voting for them? Who would make that decision to take someone's vote away for not voting for a particular player? We all know that Babe Ruth or Willie Mays or Walter Johnson were Hall of Fame players, but what would be the concrete metric for determining who a voter has to vote for?

I just don't get the angst over a player receiving 97-98 percent of the vote as opposed to 100 percent; it doesn't matter. If we were discussing a guy receiving 74 percent of the vote as opposed to 75 percent of the vote, that I could understand.

[packs]

Everyone has up to 10 votes, but there are probably a lot of writers who don't vote at all. Those are the people whose votes I'd take away.

[canjond]

Jeter

[CMIZ5290]

no, but he will have a huge percentage....

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by packs

Everyone has up to 10 votes, but there are probably a lot of writers who don't vote at all. Those are the people whose votes I'd take away.

The ONLY way ANYBODY will EVER be elected unanimously would be for all the writers to each vote for 10 players, which would mean that they would be saying that 10 out of a total of 32 players on the ballot should be elected...and I do not see that EVER happening.

I'm okay with no one ever being elected unanimously...considering the truly great players who have NOT be unanimous.
.
.

[chaddurbin]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

I'm okay with no one ever being elected unanimously...considering the truly great players who have NOT be unanimous.

yea let's compound the stupidity...

jeter wasn't even the best ss during his time, no way he's 100%.

[Rookiemonster]

There may not be a 100% hall of famer ever but it will only come from a political stand point . Griffey is on a ballot of minor star and PED users . Ruth , Seaver , didn't have that going for them . But to say it never happened so it will never happen is not a rational way of looking at it .

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Bored5000

The problem with that is how would you decide what players are so obviously Hall of Fame worthy that someone should lose their vote for not voting for them? Who would make that decision to take someone's vote away for not voting for a particular player? We all know that Babe Ruth or Willie Mays or Walter Johnson were Hall of Fame players, but what would be the concrete metric for determining who a voter has to vote for?

I just don't get the angst over a player receiving 97-98 percent of the vote as opposed to 100 percent; it doesn't matter. If we were discussing a guy receiving 74 percent of the vote as opposed to 75 percent of the vote, that I could understand

It would be hard to enforce, especially since it's been going on for so long. Writers who didn't vote for Ruth, Cobb, Young, Mays, Mantle, etc should have lost there votes when it happened. Since the practice has continued this long the only way anyone will ever get 100% is if the mentality of these holdout voters change. Or they're all replaced by people with enough common sense to vote in an obvious HOFer.

Joe Posnanski's article on Griffey's impending election:


http://sportsworld.nbcsports.com/ken...-hall-of-fame/

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by NewEnglandBaseBallist

Joe Posnanski's article on Griffey's impending election:


http://sportsworld.nbcsports.com/ken...-hall-of-fame/

A very interesting article. Definitely worth a read. It really is a shame Seaver didn't get every vote since as the article said that would have ended this stupid tradition.