Hall of Fame ballot - 2022

[LHG]

I know that there was some talk about Bonds and the HOF in past years but I'm bringing it back up due to this ballot:

Marc Narducci: My Hall Of Fame Ballot

A veteran sportswriter shares his ballot.

www.mlbtraderumors.com

The reason he gives for voting for David Ortiz but not Bonds (or Clemens for that matter) is, in my humble opinion, pure crap! I guess because Ortiz was more rotund than Bonds, its easier to doubt that Ortiz ever used? Give me a break! This kind of nonsense is why the HOF voting process is a bunch of garbage. There needs to be some objective measures set in place for this kind of stuff. The reasons for who gets votes and who doesn't, based on hearsay and suspicion, is crazy.

 

[calsnowskier]

His argument for Ortiz, as you so eloquently say, is “pure crap”.

I don’t agree with keeping Bonds, Clemens or ARod out, but I understand the argument. I can even understand voting FOR Bonds/Clemens while voting AGAINST ARod. There is enough difference in their arguments to warrant a split vote there. There is no argument for splitting your vote on Bonds and Clemens, though (not that Narducci did, I am just going on a rant). The few voters who vote for only one of Bonds/Clemens are absolute hypocritical assholes.

As for Narducci’s ballot as a whole, I don’t agree with much of it, but I don’t have too much against it. Outside of his Ortiz vote, it is his defensible opinion.


FTR, here is my ballot…

Bonds
Clemens
Rodriguez
Kent

and on the bubble…

Schilling
Sosa
Rolen

I have always been a “small Hall” guy, though, so my bar is pretty high for letting guys in (I would not have voted for Thome, for example).

 

[LHG]

His argument for Ortiz, as you so eloquently say, is “pure crap”.

I don’t agree with keeping Bonds, Clemens or ARod out, but I understand the argument. I can even understand voting FOR Bonds/Clemens while voting AGAINST ARod. There is enough difference in their arguments to warrant a split vote there. There is no argument for splitting your vote on Bonds and Clemens, though (not that Narducci did, I am just going on a rant). The few voters who vote for only one of Bonds/Clemens are absolute hypocritical assholes.

As for Narducci’s ballot as a whole, I don’t agree with much of it, but I don’t have too much against it. Outside of his Ortiz vote, it is his defensible opinion.


FTR, here is my ballot…

Bonds
Clemens
Rodriguez
Kent

and on the bubble…

Schilling
Sosa
Rolen

I have always been a “small Hall” guy, though, so my bar is pretty high for letting guys in (I would not have voted for Thome, for example).

I can understand the argument for Bonds and Clemens but against Rodriguez. He got busted after rules were in place. MLB didn't have rules against the usage when Bonds and Clemens (as well as a whole host of other players, including Ortiz) were suspected of using. I'm on the fence with him but lean toward letting him in. I really doubt his numbers would have fallen off had he not used, unless he was using from high school straight until he got busted. Even then, there were plenty of guys who used and they won't even show up on the HOF ballot.
I'm okay with a bigger HOF. The game has been around for almost 200 years now. There's going to be a lot of guys in there. So I would max out the number of guys I could vote for, knowing that half of them (at least) won't make it.

 

[pachyderm]

i think none of those guys deserve to be in.

Jeff Kent, why?

 

[calsnowskier]

i think none of those guys deserve to be in.

Jeff Kent, why?

4 time top 10 MVP
MVP
5 time all star
35.9 WAR7
greatest HR hitting 2B ever
No PED accusations (I don’t really care about this, but others do)

 

[pachyderm]

4 time top 10 MVP
MVP
5 time all star
35.9 WAR7
greatest HR hitting 2B ever
No PED accusations (I don’t really care about this, but others do)

LOL

You should.

Kent in then...

 

[LHG]

Well, the Hall of Fame sure has become a laughingstock (at least, gotten much closer to one).

 

[tzill]

Where the asterisk belongs