|
Curt Schilling’s rookie might rise all the way to some sales at 75 cents for a week.
|
Maybe the ONLY time a what if purchase might work out for me. MAYBE:
https://live.staticflickr.com/4712/3...f8fa35f47a.jpg |
we should do a HOF poll on net54 not sure how to start it
|
The 16 voters are players: Chipper Jones, Greg Maddux, Jack Morris, Ryne Sandberg, Lee Smith, Frank Thomas, and Alan Trammell,; Executives Paul Beeston, Theo Epstein, Arte Moreno, Kim Ng, Dave St. Peter, and Ken Williams; and historian/experts: Steve Hirdt, LaVelle Neal and Susan Slusser.
Some of those on this list (Sandberg, Thomas, Morris, and Williams etc) are on the record that they would never support PED candidates. That makes Bonds, Clemens and Palmeiro long shots. Schilling has been a pretty terrible person since he finished his career. He alienated/insulted the writers when they were voting. He's probably got a good shot with this group unless they are worried about what he will say at his induction and that it might degrade the event and the HOF in general. I also think McGriff has good odds with this electorate. My choices would be Bonds, Clemens, and Palmeiro, in that order. They are all solid candidates and none of them would meaningfully diminish the caliber of HOF. |
Copied directly from the BBWAA web site regarding HOF election requirements:
Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played. I can already hear it - then how did "so and so" get in? Perhaps that person was voted in at a time when "standards" regarding the criteria were not under the proverbial microscope as they are today. I think what hurts a lot of PED users was the denial and outright lying they did. When testifying to congress about PED use, isn't it not a good thing when you get caught in that lie? If they start letting PED users in, then they should start with McGwire, because at least he told the truth about his PED use. The one criteria each of the PED users qualifies for is "the players record". Each of those PED users have great stats they probably would not have achieved without the PEDs. In some cases like Bonds and Clemens, it's a shame because those guys were on track to have great careers without the PEDs. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Really, though, it's a wonderful upstate New York setting, and I'm sure a wonderful place to visit and all, but does anyone really give a good hoot about the HOF anymore, considering the recent admissions and continued oversights? The Hall of jacked-up, hyped-up, influenced, irrelevant, statistical Mediocrity. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The Morris select felt at the time like a big "FU" to the analytics crowd. After all, he had the "most wins of the 80's" and could "pitch the the score". Glad the consensus now is that he's a bad selection. |
And I will say, even if you avoided the hall of plagues on principle, the Hall if still a pretty amazing place to visit. Highly recommend it to anyone who hasn't been!
|
Quote:
|
Schilling
1 Attachment(s)
Should get in. Off the field carries very low weight (or should).
|
McGriff is in.
|
Welcome to the Hall Crime Dog!
|
McGriff was definitely the most likely to get elected this cycle, but it's a bit surprising that Mattingly was #2, one vote ahead of Schilling.
|
What a joke.
|
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
The Baseball Hall Of Mediocrity. No relevance, no credibility. Again, who gives a good hoot...
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I'm very disappointed Schilling didn't make it.
|
Quote:
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...9b38273f53.jpg I went two months ago. I stood at this wall for 10 minutes just staring |
Regardless of one's perspective on Bonds, Clemens, Palmiero, Sosa, etc., this vote was the death knell for their HOF chances.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I agree.....just absurd. He's carrying the Hodges torch now as being the player with the highest % from the BBWAA voting not elected. |
Fred McGriff was McGreat and about time he got in.:)
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mattsey9 View Post
Regardless of one's perspective on Bonds, Clemens, Palmiero, Sosa, etc., this vote was the death knell for their HOF chances. ----- It certainly doesn't bode well for them but some other group of 16 "committee members" could feel differently. This group was stacked against them -- voters like Sandberg Thomas and Morris who were on the record as despising any and all alleged PED users. As some have suggested the proper remedy is to have a committee tasked with assessing "PED/Selig era" players make some sort of informed recommendations. I find the sanctimoniousness of the voters on this issue a bit much at times. It's not like the Hall of Fame has ever been populated by those who were above cheating and taking advantage of loopholes to play their best and win at whatever cost. Go back to Pud Galvin and his primitive PEDs.... https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...her-of-juicing ... This week the great Gaylord Perry passed. He is all-but-celebrated for cheating (being called "crafty" which is admirable). I think Perry is a HOFer but what did Barry Bonds do that makes him so much worse.? He (allegedly I am compelled to write) unknowingly took "supplements" that enabled him to work out harder, prolong an already great career and commit the sin of being so damn good that he virtually obliterated the record books. Likely David Ortiz did much the same (to a lesser degree and with less stunning results). But people like the beloved "Big Papi" and not the surly Bonds. I fear that to a degree that's really what's going on. |
Quote:
|
For what it's worth, the Hall, love or dislike it, is an integral part of baseball and hence affects the hobby.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Remember, I was the only guy advocating the 3 M’s as my top 3 choices: McGriff, Mattingly and Murphy. Just about had all three exactly right except that Schilling snook in one vote ahead of Murphy. No baggage wins out over pure numbers. Not surprising but again, would not have been the way I voted.
|
Quote:
Had they included McGwire in this current contemporary group being considered, alongside Bonds, Clemens, and Palmiero, can definitely see that killing his chances as some committee members would not likely ever vote for McGwire, while not voting for any of the others, without them being somewhat perceived as hypocrites. |
Quote:
Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk |
Posted by BobC: I wonder if this is why McGwire was not part of this current contemporary group. When this committee next meets, maybe they can then easily ignore Bonds, Clemens, and Palmiero and leave them off the next ballot for consideration since they did so poorly this time, and instead put someone like McGwire up for consideration in their place. That way even more time has passed, and maybe there aren't as many selection committee members in the next group that are so vehemently against any PED use whatsoever. Wouldn't put it past the powers that be to do something like that to possibly give McGwire a better chance.
Had they included McGwire in this current contemporary group being considered, alongside Bonds, Clemens, and Palmiero, can definitely see that killing his chances as some committee members would not likely ever vote for McGwire, while not voting for any of the others, without them being somewhat perceived as hypocrites. ======== Yeah it does make sense. I mean why slate Palmeiro and not McGwire and (to a lesser extent) Sosa who are both "liked" ? Sosa and McGwire both outpolled Raffy as recall. The ballot construction is very suspect. My guess is that Schilling doesn't get votes because people are (legitimately) afraid that he will embarrass the HOF or at least create unnecessary controversies in his induction speech Peter -- I did see the Mays documentary that presents a very affable and admirable Bonds. It had has even been criticized as "Bonds propaganda" because Mays so clearly wants Bonds (his godson) to be appreciated and to be in the HOF. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Bonds and Clemens made the choice to cheat the game and the fans. They knew what they did was wrong and they lied about it over and over, and are still lying about it to this day.
They shouldn't expect to be in the Hall of Fame, they don't deserve to be in the Hall. It's not the fault of the voters, the players' own past choices are keeping them out. Sure, Papi was a media darling and got in, and Reinsdorf coerced the committee to get Selig in, both horrible decisions, but that doesn't mean we should let every snake into the Hall. The steroid scandal did major damage to the game of baseball. Bonds and Clemens, along with Selig and Reinsdorf, had huge roles in that and we all should be aware of it and not try to rationalize it away. They cheated and got away with it. Good for them in a sense. They have their records and nobody has taken them away. But that doesn't mean they should be in the Hall of Fame. Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:59 PM. |