Guest Princess Leena Posted January 13, 2006 Report Posted January 13, 2006 Why not. He'll have 1000 HR's when he's finished. And 698 win shares. And a Keltner sabermetric index of 15. A-Rod #1.
sfaJack Posted January 13, 2006 Report Posted January 13, 2006 Because there are some guys who refuse to vote anyone in the first time. And there's probably one writer that hates A-Rod and will never vote for him regardless of his numbers.
Slayer Posted January 13, 2006 Report Posted January 13, 2006 To quote something I heard several years ago: "If Nolan Ryan couldn't get a 100% vote, then no one will"
Vern Gagne Posted January 13, 2006 Report Posted January 13, 2006 Nolan Ryan didn't deserve 100% of the votes.
The Man in Blak Posted January 13, 2006 Report Posted January 13, 2006 Highest percentage ever was Tom Seaver, I believe, and he didn't get 100% of the votes either. As for A-Rod, it won't matter if he hits a thousand home runs - if A-Rod's perceived lack of playoff success continues, I could see a couple of writers holding that against him, saying that he "wasn't clutch." Do not underestimate the stupidity of some of the card-carrying members of the writer's association.
C Dubya 04 Posted January 13, 2006 Report Posted January 13, 2006 Nolan Ryan didn't deserve 100% of the votes. While Nolan Ryan was far from the greatest pitcher ever, he certainly put up Hall of Fame numbers and is clearly deserving of the Hall. I think that he should have gotten 100%, as I would seriously question anyone who thought he didn't belong.
CanadianChris Posted January 14, 2006 Report Posted January 14, 2006 I've never understood the mentality that "he needs to wait a year." If you think he belongs, vote for him. If you don't, don't. But don't make a guy serve a year or two's penance for not being one of the 20 best players ever. That's not what the HOF is about.
Slayer Posted January 14, 2006 Report Posted January 14, 2006 "Well, we don't have any real Hall of Famers to put in this year, so you'll do."
Guest Princess Leena Posted January 14, 2006 Report Posted January 14, 2006 Because there are some guys who refuse to vote anyone in the first time. And there's probably one writer that hates A-Rod and will never vote for him regardless of his numbers. True. Jealous because he's rich and hot. Plus, a lot of those Boston degenerates probably have votes.
Vern Gagne Posted January 14, 2006 Report Posted January 14, 2006 I've never understood the mentality that "he needs to wait a year." If you think he belongs, vote for him. If you don't, don't. But don't make a guy serve a year or two's penance for not being one of the 20 best players ever. That's not what the HOF is about. Why not. It should elite company to be a first ballot inductee. The very best of the best.
EVIL~! alkeiper Posted January 14, 2006 Report Posted January 14, 2006 but that is not part of the institution. There is no footnote on a Hall of Fame plaque that says "first ballot." There's no distinction on a list of HOFers in an encyclopedia that separates the first ballot entrants. It's just somethings a small group of writers invented to make themselves feel more important about the voting.
EVIL~! alkeiper Posted January 14, 2006 Report Posted January 14, 2006 It's really sad reading this thread, and then listening to Cowherd on ESPN radio tomorrow say that numbers are meaningless for the HOF, and if you think a player was great, they should be in. It finally occured to me the problem with Cowherd's thinking. Let's say you are a hardcore baseball fanatic, and watch a game every single day of the baseball season. That's 180 games. There are 2,250 games in a baseball season. And that's in an age with satellite radio, satellite television, cable, etc. And Cowherd thinks you can make HOF judgements based on memory from 25-30 years ago, without statistics, when you couldn't possibly have seen 90% of the games? That's exactly why we have statistics.
Bored Posted January 14, 2006 Author Report Posted January 14, 2006 Here let me steal a Stephen Colbert quote and change it up a little to make it sound like a baseball writer. "The fact that they looked it up in a book just shows they don't get the idea of what a Hall of Famer really is. You don't look for a Hall of Famer in a book, you look for him in your gut."
Guest Princess Leena Posted January 14, 2006 Report Posted January 14, 2006 It's really sad reading this thread, and then listening to Cowherd on ESPN radio tomorrow say that numbers are meaningless for the HOF, and if you think a player was great, they should be in. It finally occured to me the problem with Cowherd's thinking. Let's say you are a hardcore baseball fanatic, and watch a game every single day of the baseball season. That's 180 games. There are 2,250 games in a baseball season. And that's in an age with satellite radio, satellite television, cable, etc. And Cowherd thinks you can make HOF judgements based on memory from 25-30 years ago, without statistics, when you couldn't possibly have seen 90% of the games? That's exactly why we have statistics. I think you're heavily overestimating Cowherd.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now