Baseball HOF

[Gert T 0]

I have always been pissed by this, and after reading the Bonds 500-500 thread I wanted to bring this up. Why are baseball writers such assholes and holier-than-thou that they will not make someone a unanimous selection to the HOF? I know that the argument that "no one else has", "Ruth didn't have steroids", "the ball is juiced", "everyone in this era hits home runs", etc.

 

Seriously though, if they look at the stats, why should someone who has the power and honor these writers do not vote for Bonds, by the time he's done he'll be at least in the top 3 in HR's, only 500-500, what 4-5 MVP's and a shitload of Gold Gloves (as you can see my research is getting worse). Do they make these votes public, because I want to hear the reasons why, and when Bonds gets with 97% of the vote because the media doesn't like Bonds enough to have the record for highest % of votes, it will certainly make the term "journalistic integrity" quite the oxymoron.

[Guest DrTom]

Dude, he's coasting in on the first ballot. Who cares if it's unanimous? Some sportswriter will get bent because Bonds blew him off for an interview fifteen years ago and won't vote for him. Shit happens, and assholes vote in every election of any kind this country has hosted.

[Gert T 0]

My problem isn't whether someone is unanimous, its just that fact that a voter will hold a grudge because they are unkind to media, or not perceived as good as the heroes of their youth.

 

Sorry if that came of too pro-Bonds as I really don't care for the guy, but the stats are great.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Tom's right. Personal grudges, ego. For whatever reason the 1st ballot locks don't get 100%.

 

Personally, I never got some players getting in on their 9th-10th try? Either you're a HOF player, or your not. Not everyone is deserving to be a first or 2nd ballot player, but after that what's the difference between 3 and 9? The numbers aren't going to change.

[Gert T 0]

Yeah I think on some show on ESPN they were talking about how Carlton Fisk (I think), was not voted in his first year because many voters did not want more than three people inducted in the same year.

[Guest undisputedjericho]

Usually about 4 are voted in...the veteran's committee has an election too. You can find the results of the voting for the HoF and pretty much every award at Baseball-Reference.com

 

Nolan Ryan was on 98% or 99%...that's the highest there I believe.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

The Veterans committee is different know. It's every 2 years. Gil Hodges and Tony Olivia where the top 2 vote getters. Missing out by 11 and 12 votes. I was just looking at the numbers, and none of the players are really deserving.

[Guest alkeiper]

What about Ron Santo?

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

There are only two things that matter about the Hall of Fame:

 

1. Ty Cobb was the first man in. Since he led all vote-getters in the inaugural class Cobb has the distinction of being "The Man" despite everyone's favorite Ruth also getting in. Fuck Babe Ruth. If the people who watched them both play knew Cobb was better, why will no one admit it NOW?

 

2. They never should have let Maz in. You know why he's the best fielding second basemen? Because he wasn't good enough to play short. .260 lifetime average...please.

[Guest hardyz1]

What about Ron Santo?

Preach on!

[Guest alkeiper]

1. Ty Cobb was the first man in. Since he led all vote-getters in the inaugural class Cobb has the distinction of being "The Man" despite everyone's favorite Ruth also getting in. Fuck Babe Ruth. If the people who watched them both play knew Cobb was better, why will no one admit it NOW?

 

1. Because Cobb was not better than Ruth, no matter how you slice it.

 

2. There was no distinction on eligibility. The vote happened in 1936, with Ruth one year into retirement, and Cobb eight years in. If you read Bill James' The Politics Of Glory, you'll see that there was much confusion during the early years of the Hall of Fame. It was not the voting process we know today.

 

3. The difference between Cobb and Ruth was 7 measley votes. Hardly a slam dunk.

 

4. Sportswriters are prone to over emphasizing the accomplishments of the past.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

What about Ron Santo?

Preach on!

Sell me on Ron Santo. The career numbers don't do it for me. Please, no he has better numbers than George Kell or some other third basemen. Those hitters don't belong in the HOF either.

[Guest alkeiper]

Fair enough Verne. I'll attempt to sell you on Ron Santo's candidacy.

 

1. Ron Santo was clearly a better player than George Kell. Kell wasn't a good slugger, while Santo was.

 

2. When evaluating Santo's numbers, you have to remember that he played in a great era for pitchers. The 60s were to pitching what the 90s were/are to home run hitters. In context, Santo's performance is better than the numbers might indicate. And he still hit 342 home runs.

 

3. Ron Santo was a terrific defender, and won five gold gloves. He did so despite strenuous competition from Ken Boyer, one of the best fielders in the game.

 

4. The Hall of Fame is under-represented in third basemen, in comparison to other positions. The voters are holding third basemen to a higher standard.

 

5. Ron Santo is currently the best eligible third baseman not honored by the baseball hall of fame.

 

6. Santo is not only better than Kell, but also better than Fred Lindstrom, Pie Traynor, and yes, Brooks Robinson. The only third basmen clearly better were Schmidt, Brett, Boggs, Eddie Mathews, and Home Run Baker. Boggs Schmidt and Brett came along after he played, so you could make a case that he was the third best third baseman of all time when he retired.

 

Hope I convinced you.