2024 Classic HOF election

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by G1911

It’s good to fun to argue who should or shouldn’t be and rankings, but the actual choices are barely even worth indignation. Drug test failing steroid user Ortiz is in, but the rest get an inconsistent punishment. Schilling is out for partisan politics incompatible with the electorate media and largely demonstrably false related stories. Parker, Morris, Baines, Frisch and his cronies making it a complete joke, the litany of ridiculous choices from these small insider committees with private ballots go back over half a century. They obviously have no desire to clean it up and adopt any reasonable method of election. The museum is cool but the plaques are less and less worth seeing as it has turned into a Hall of Voting Practices That Are Designed To Ensure A Dishonest Outcome

It's clearly a mess. I think that the fans are much more concerned about the integrity of the game than the actual stewards of the game, i.e. the commissioner's office which presumably impacts all of this. After all, we're now discussing this "golden at bat" bullshit. The extra inning ghost runner at least made some sense due to the decreased innings per starter as the game has evolved. But the golden at bat is just a slap in the face of any purist or quasi-purist. If they care this little about the integrity of the game, why should they pretend to care who gets into the HOF and why?

[Fred]

Originally Posted by calvindog

It's clearly a mess. I think that the fans are much more concerned about the integrity of the game than the actual stewards of the game, i.e. the commissioner's office which presumably impacts all of this. After all, we're now discussing this "golden at bat" bullshit. The extra inning ghost runner at least made some sense due to the decreased innings per starter as the game has evolved. But the golden at bat is just a slap in the face of any purist or quasi-purist. If they care this little about the integrity of the game, why should they pretend to care who gets into the HOF and why?

That golden at bat idea was probably brought up after a long night of drinking and smoking whatever it is that causes thoughts like this to be even mentioned out loud after the alcohol bottles and bong bowls have been emptied.

That idea is a golden turd... if there's any serious consideration to it, I think I'll look for another favorite sport.

[packs]

I would be in favor of a golden at bat if the golden at bat was a random drawing once a year for a fan to get an at bat. MLB could donate to charity for every fan who manages a major league hit.

[Fred]

Originally Posted by packs

I would be in favor of a golden at bat if the golden at bat was a random drawing once a year for a fan to get an at bat. MLB could donate to charity for every fan who manages a major league hit.

Here's a thought. The manager selects the golden at bat for that game. The umpire breaks out the golden at bat coin and flips it. The opposing manager chooses headsand it comes up heads, now the opposing manager gets to pick who he wants to have that at bat. MLB could get a sponsorship from Draftkings or some other betting entity and before the coin flip, people can place a bet on who wins the coin flip. Then there could be side bets on who the batter will be, what will transpire. MLB could have the betting website pay a 10% commission for each golden at bat situation to pop up. Isn't that the way sports is going these days? Parlays, over/under on final game scores, or how many strikeouts a pitcher has in a certain inning... whatever happened to just watching a game.

Edited to add - Allen and Parker were good choices from the bunch, but I think el Tiante should have gotten in. As mentioned by many others, the HOF is very watered down thanks to the Veterans committees of the past.

[calvindog]

I think Parker and Allen are worthy all things considered. But why not Garvey and Tommy John?