Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I have a sinking feeling that Mike Mussina is going to fall off the ballot after one year, and it will be a ####### disgrace.
Well, whaddayagonnado? (Besides change the dumb rules, I know, but I mean given the rules.) This would be my ballot as well. (And Henning certainly agrees that the rules are dumb.)
I do think that Schilling and Mussina (and Larry Walker, not mentioned at all in TFA) were better than Edgar. But of course it's debatable, and I can't get any of them to be top 10 in any event.
It's the fault of people who won't vote for someone who "maybe used steroids even though there's no actual evidence buy hey just look at him I'm protecting the game!" which leaves a bunch of guys -- not just Bonds, Clemens, etc - on the ballot and there's no room for guys who absolutely should be in. Obama.
but this ballot exactly matches my hypothetical one.
You've been making too much sense lately -- stop stealing my routine! :-)
Not my HOF ballot, obviously (I would never vote for Bonds, and I might vote for Clemens in the future but not this year given the number of great names in danger of sliding off altogther)...
I would never vote for Bonds, and I might vote for Clemens
I would've voted for McGwire and left Dawson off
I am reasonably confident that all that really has to happen to get the ballot extended is for enough voters to raise their hand and ask to have the ballot extended. Who is really going to object to this? At worst you get something like "we'll try it for five years and see how it goes."
As to strategic voting. I think past voting patterns isn't indicative of future patterns. There is a real reason to believe that someone who falls off this ballot, would have eventually made it when the backlog clears. A 5-10% on this ballot is a 20% on a past ballot and can eventually gather enough support.
Mussina going one and done is no more a tragedy than Brown, Whitaker or Simmons going one and done.
I don't get it. What's the point of making sure someone gets 6%? Nobody is going to make it from 6%.
Hoffman, Andruw, Vizquel, Rolen, Damon, Wagner, Posada and Delgado.
In the hopes that the HOF realizes they need to expand the ballot sooner rather than later, so the mid and lower level (though still worthy) HOF types are still around to benefit from it. It does no good for Mussina, Kent, McGwire, Palmeiro, Sosa, Walker, McGriff, etc, if the HOF finally expands the ballot in a few years and they're already gone.
Everyone you are stealing a vote from to keep your pet case at 6% also deserves to be in and you are making it harder by keeping them from gaining momentum.
It's sucks that a few are going to be Whitaker-ed, but if it reduces the number of potentials it at least gives the middle of the ballot guys a better chance.
* For instance, if Mussina, Kent, Sosa and Palmerio all fail to get 5 percent this year, there's nothing stopping the Hall from expanding the ballot and reinstating them to next year's.
How would they make the distinction on who to reinstate? Why Mussina and Kent if they don't get 5% but not the Sean Casey/Paul Lo Duca types that would never have gotten a 2nd shot even on a normal ballot?
A pretty big one. Which, if you want changes, you should hope this happens in the short term and scrap the 'strategic voting'.
But then there are those years, almost all before I was old enough to be paying attention, in which people swear he was a hell of a fielder in CF. I just have the damnedest time deciding about Dawson.
Common sense? The HOF re-instated a bunch of guys in 1985: Santo, Boyer, Allen, a few others who don't come to mind. Reasonable candidates. They didn't re-instate Ron Hunt, or Jim Hickman, or Claude Osteen, and everybody was fine with that.
And would they only consider candidates that fell off from this season, or would Kenny Lofton, Bernie Williams, and Kevin Brown get another shot?
Presumably. Boyer fell off in 1979, Santo 1980, Allen 1983.
You can expand the ballot quite a bit, and I'm unquestionably in favor of it, but unless you also extend the time on the ballot, then I doubt anyone in jeopardy of falling off is ever going to benefit meaningfully from it (other than in the sense that they got to spend longer on the ballot, an objective of DanG's but not important to many others).
--the top 20 also-rans from the previous year
--15 first-year candidates
--5 players getting a second chance from the ballot committee
My suggestion for reforming the Hall of Fame voting is simple: drop the percentage requirements for induction and for staying on the ballot. Induct the top three every year and drop anyone who's not in the top twenty in votes.
I'm reasonably confident there will be worthy inductees every year, and that we won't lose anyone too important that way.
b) the electorate improved
Utopian ideas are fine if they are recognized for the fantasies that they are. What process do you think will bring about this improved electorate? I'll tell you: things have to get really bad first.
Can I ask, seriously, why do you guys care so much about the Hall of Fame in the first place?
why do you guys care so much about the Hall of Fame
improvements are possible and don't require things falling into outright chaos
How would you feel if you were Bonds or Clemens?
I'd personally be fine with a top 3 induction every year, but then you'd have people complaining that the standards are watered down cuz guys with only 59 percent (like 3rd place Bagwell got last year) are getting in.
Also, I DO think we'll be losing some worthwhile candidates if everyone outside the top 20 falls off. With Mattingly and especially Morris and Smith drawing way more votes than they deserve, probably 2 of the Mussina/Kent/Palmeiro/Sosa group would likely be gone after this season anyway, which wouldn't be any different than what's probably going to happen with the current system.
To me the ideal solution is for some billionaire to start an alternative to the Coop. Know any good candidates to fund the effort?
It wouldn't take a billionaire. It could easily be done with a few tens of millions. I was thinking the exact same thing a few years ago while visiting the hall, and even saw a building for sale right down the street from the museum that would work. I've been actively working on the funding part, and will make an announcement as soon as I get the right set of numbers from my investors, Mega Millions and Powerball.
Why care about sports in the first place? Or anything, for that matter? Any interest could seem silly to someone who doesn't share it.
I disagree it's not that simple. I enjoy the game of baseball and I enjoy speculating on the strategy in the game. I also enjoy studying the history of it; the trends, the analysis of who was great and by how much. I enjoy all that.
I have just about zero interest in some institution that has it's own definition of what is great or not. I had a bit of interest in it as a kid, and when they inducted Clemente and Satchel, but that's long since vanished.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (1 members)
Page rendered in 0.6889 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed