Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 2:57:05 GMT
Some voters can be so dense.
|
|
|
|
Post by nutsberryfarm 🏜 on Mar 6, 2018 3:02:53 GMT
putin.
|
|
|
|
Post by No_Socks_Here on Mar 6, 2018 3:09:17 GMT
Gotta be Trump's fault.
|
|
|
|
Post by koskiewicz on Mar 6, 2018 3:19:42 GMT
...the HOF is a popularity contest with the voting sportswriters...
|
|
|
|
Post by Toy-Cannon on Mar 6, 2018 8:38:32 GMT
Some voters can be so dense. Because no one in the past has. That is the excuse they keep using. |
|
|
|
Post by Xeliou66 on Mar 6, 2018 9:02:14 GMT
I wonder if anyone will in the future? I think Jeter might, he should that’s for sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by FrankSobotka1514 on Mar 6, 2018 12:42:54 GMT
1. "Because if Babe Ruth didn't get in unanimously, then __________ shouldn't either."
2. Some sportswriters feel that no one should go in on their first ballot for some stupid reason.
3. Some sportswriters will purposely not vote for someone considered to be a lock (Griffey Jr., Maddux, etc.) in order to vote for a player that that has a greater need of increasing their percentage of appearances on a ballot (Larry Walker, Mike Mussina etc.)
|
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Mar 6, 2018 12:56:13 GMT
This is the new 'Thanks Obama' I guess? |
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Mar 6, 2018 13:34:08 GMT
1. "Because if Babe Ruth didn't get in unanimously, then __________ shouldn't either." 2. Some sportswriters feel that no one should go in on their first ballot for some stupid reason. 3. Some sportswriters will purposely not vote for someone considered to be a lock (Griffey Jr., Maddux, etc.) in order to vote for a player that that has a greater need of increasing their percentage of appearances on a ballot (Larry Walker, Mike Mussina etc.) This is the correct answer, ridiculous as it sounds. These writers can be the worst sometimes. |
|
|
|
Post by Xeliou66 on Mar 6, 2018 16:21:21 GMT
1. "Because if Babe Ruth didn't get in unanimously, then __________ shouldn't either." 2. Some sportswriters feel that no one should go in on their first ballot for some stupid reason. 3. Some sportswriters will purposely not vote for someone considered to be a lock (Griffey Jr., Maddux, etc.) in order to vote for a player that that has a greater need of increasing their percentage of appearances on a ballot (Larry Walker, Mike Mussina etc.) This is the correct answer, ridiculous as it sounds. These writers can be the worst sometimes. Yeah it’s absolutely absurd that no one has ever gotten in unanimously, sometimes the baseball writers who vote for these things are obsessed with idiotic traditions and that why it hasn’t happened. |
|
|
|
Post by knowlto on Mar 6, 2018 16:50:38 GMT
1. "Because if Babe Ruth didn't get in unanimously, then __________ shouldn't either." 2. Some sportswriters feel that no one should go in on their first ballot for some stupid reason. 3. Some sportswriters will purposely not vote for someone considered to be a lock (Griffey Jr., Maddux, etc.) in order to vote for a player that that has a greater need of increasing their percentage of appearances on a ballot (Larry Walker, Mike Mussina etc.) I'll add number 4, some writers get a thrill knowing that they are the ones who kept someone from getting 100% of the vote. It's a power trip. |
|
|
|
Post by NewtJorden on Mar 6, 2018 20:06:45 GMT
I dont think its possible for a player to be loved by 100% of the sportswriters.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Mar 6, 2018 20:35:27 GMT
Frank said pretty much what I was going to say. Might be other factors for individual cases. Some writers might have excluded Steve Carlton because he was such a jerk. Nitpicking a players stat lines, Nolan Ryan's W-L for example. Doubtful now, but I bet race was a factor at one time. I would still like to ask the writers who didn't vote for Hank Aaron "Why? Didn't Aaron's 755 HR's 3,700 hits, 13 top 10 MVP voting impress you enough?"
|
|
|
|
Post by FrankSobotka1514 on Mar 6, 2018 20:40:07 GMT
I dont think its possible for a player to be loved by 100% of the sportswriters. The stats of certain players should speak for themselves regardless of the player was a jerkoff or not. While Randy Johnson, for example, might not have signed an autograph for Joe Blow Sportswriter’s 5 year old niece or whatever, who could look at his body of work and not cast a vote for him? They probably shouldn’t even release the voting percentage, just say if a guy made it or not. |
|
|
|
Post by NJtoTX on Mar 6, 2018 21:17:59 GMT
Some know a guy is a shoe-in, so why waste a vote you can give to someone else?
Some vote for 1 or 2 guys from their home team and ignore the rest of the ballot, like the guy who only voted for Vazquel and Thome.
Some let their kid or someone else fill in the ballot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 23:09:27 GMT
I dont think its possible for a player to be loved by 100% of the sportswriters. THEY don't have to be, just their stats do. |
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Mar 7, 2018 3:02:56 GMT
I wonder if anyone will in the future? I think Jeter might, he should that’s for sure. lols |
|
|
|
Post by msdemos on Mar 7, 2018 4:02:55 GMT
I dont think its possible for a player to be loved by 100% of the sportswriters.Maybe.....but you would hope the sportswriters can be objective enough to separate their "love" (or lack of "love") for a player, from that player's talent, and his accomplishments on the field. The "not voting for a guy suspected of cheating (i.e., ped's)" I can understand, but the idea that a writer actually withholds a vote NOT because he doesn't believe a player is worthy of it, or getting in the hall, but rather for some silly idea like "nobody should get in on the first ballot", or, "no player should get 100% of the ballots", etc., etc.' is simply childish....  SAVE FERRIS
|
|
