HOF Exit Poll Results

[gunnarthor]

As you say, Rose is all over the record books and he has several items in the HOF. It's not like people don't know who he is. Why does he need a plaque on the wall? It's an honor that he doesn't deserve, it's not a right they are keeping from him.

 

[StanMarsh51]

yet his 4 significant records and myriad of other significant accomplishments are still there in the record books, nearly 30 years later

mlb is full of cowards unless they strike his entire career/accomplishments from the record. you and i both know they won't do that, though. gee, i wonder why.

come on, let's leave hypocrisy to the millionaires, and not condone it.

So if a player is banned from participating in the sport, all of his records have to be wiped from the books as if it didn't happen (otherwise it's hypocritical)?

I don't see the logic in that..

 

[cezero]

So if a player is banned from participating in the sport, all of his records have to be wiped from the books as if it didn't happen (otherwise it's hypocritical)?

if HOF induction is driven by stats that MLB chooses to record, then absolutely yes.

otherwise MLB is simply ignoring the very stats they ostensibly value in the first place.

this is basic logic.

 

[cezero]

As you say, Rose is all over the record books and he has several items in the HOF. It's not like people don't know who he is. Why does he need a plaque on the wall? It's an honor that he doesn't deserve, it's not a right they are keeping from him.

appeal to "common knowledge" is a basic logical fallacy.

again, this is basic logic.

 

[StanMarsh51]

if HOF induction is driven by stats that MLB chooses to record, then absolutely yes.

otherwise MLB is simply ignoring the very stats they ostensibly value in the first place.

this is basic logic.

These are the 5 criteria for players to be eligible for the HOF:

3. Eligible Candidates -- Candidates to be eligible must meet the following requirements:
A. A baseball player must have been active as a player in the Major Leagues at some time during a period beginning twenty (20) years before and ending five (5) years prior to election.
B. Player must have played in each of ten (10) Major League championship seasons, some part of which must have been within the period described in 3 (A).
C. Player shall have ceased to be an active player in the Major Leagues at least five (5) calendar years preceding the election but may be otherwise connected with baseball.
D. In case of the death of an active player or a player who has been retired for less than five (5) full years, a candidate who is otherwise eligible shall be eligible in the next regular election held at least six (6) months after the date of death or after the end of the five (5) year period, whichever occurs first.
E. Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate.


Rose doesn't meet criteria E, which he under his own will chose not to meet. Therefore, he shouldn't be in the HOF.

It's fairly simple...there are five criteria, and you need to meet all 5 if you want to be considered for the HOF...not 4, not 3, not 2, not 1. Need to meet all 5.

This has nothing to do with his records...this has to do with whether he gets a plaque in Cooperstown. Not meeting all 5 criteria = no chance for a plaque.

 

[cezero]

These are the 5 criteria for players to be eligible:

3. Eligible Candidates -- Candidates to be eligible must meet the following requirements:
A. A baseball player must have been active as a player in the Major Leagues at some time during a period beginning twenty (20) years before and ending five (5) years prior to election.
B. Player must have played in each of ten (10) Major League championship seasons, some part of which must have been within the period described in 3 (A).
C. Player shall have ceased to be an active player in the Major Leagues at least five (5) calendar years preceding the election but may be otherwise connected with baseball.
D. In case of the death of an active player or a player who has been retired for less than five (5) full years, a candidate who is otherwise eligible shall be eligible in the next regular election held at least six (6) months after the date of death or after the end of the five (5) year period, whichever occurs first.
E. Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate.


Rose doesn't meet criteria E, which he under his own will chose not to meet. Therefore, he shouldn't be in the HOF.

It's fairly simple...there are five criteria, and you need to meet all 5...not 4, not 3, not 2, not 1. Need to meet all 5.

which justifies keeping his records on the books and ignoring them...for you and some others.

i understand your opinion, but it's truly absurd. looking through your posts, i see that you're a smart fan, so it's all good. we'll just never agree on this particular point.

take care.

 

[obxyankeefan]

These are the 5 criteria for players to be eligible for the HOF:

3. Eligible Candidates -- Candidates to be eligible must meet the following requirements:
A. A baseball player must have been active as a player in the Major Leagues at some time during a period beginning twenty (20) years before and ending five (5) years prior to election.
B. Player must have played in each of ten (10) Major League championship seasons, some part of which must have been within the period described in 3 (A).
C. Player shall have ceased to be an active player in the Major Leagues at least five (5) calendar years preceding the election but may be otherwise connected with baseball.
D. In case of the death of an active player or a player who has been retired for less than five (5) full years, a candidate who is otherwise eligible shall be eligible in the next regular election held at least six (6) months after the date of death or after the end of the five (5) year period, whichever occurs first.
E. Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate.


Rose doesn't meet criteria E, which he under his own will chose not to meet. Therefore, he shouldn't be in the HOF.

It's fairly simple...there are five criteria, and you need to meet all 5 if you want to be considered for the HOF...not 4, not 3, not 2, not 1. Need to meet all 5.

This has nothing to do with his records...this has to do with whether he gets a plaque in Cooperstown. Not meeting all 5 criteria = no chance for a plaque.

Quick question and corect me if I am wrong: Wasn't Rose eligible to be a write in candidate?

 

[dougplayer]

jack morris should be in.
pete rose should be in.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

This crap always comes up every year. A few years ago, HBT wrote an article on it and found that the BBWAA has done a pretty decent job of electing the right players (vet committee was a different matter). Some it might take a year or two longer but all in all, they've gotten it right.

On PEDs, you certainly have views that are different than what seems to be the predominant view of the BBWAA. But most fans also don't want PED users in the HOF. So you'd be left arguing that you want a group of voters that vote the way you want them to.

Lastly, who gives a shit about voting percentages? Why on earth would anyone want a group of 500 plus people to have unanimous agreement on anything? Wishing people had groupthink isn't the answer.

Obviously, the Veterans' Committee was responsible for most of the worst HOFers earning election. However, the HOF recognized that problem, and instituted reform. Now, the VC has done a great job in the past 10 years, righting wrongs and electing deserving players, and helping make up for the mistakes of the BBWAA (i.e. Ron Santo). The reformed VC is a strength now.

The BBWAA *usually* gets them right, because HOFers are *usually* pretty cut and dry. But over the past 10 years, they've made some egregious errors in players they've elected (Rice, Dawson) as well as players they've omitted (Bonds, Clemens, Bagwell, Piazza, etc).

I personally think the issue is that there are simply too many voters, and too many voters who don't follow or cover the game closely enough to accurately assess who is a HOFer. Of course, you're going to always have retards like Murray Chass and Bill Madden who actively follow the game and still know nothing about it. But if you limit the vote to truly qualified voters, then the quality writers will drown out the Chasses and Maddens. I really think that's all that needs to take place... the BBWAA has to reform the process from within and restrict the voting to a select number of *qualified* writers, not just anyone who has a membership card.

Lastly, I never said anything about unanimous agreement. I don't need 100% of voters to think Tim Raines or Curt Schilling is a HOFer, but I'd hope that at least 75% of a group who is purported to be experts on the subject of baseball would recognize that he is, and the others would at least have a supportable opinion.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

I'm sick to death of the PED subject, and greenies (among other things) have always been a part of the culture. I guess I'm with BigD here, rolling with the flow. As much as I can't stand Bonds, I think he certainly deserves to be in the HOF. Then again, I also think Pete Rose does.

I don't know why Rose always has to be brought up with this subject. Let me first state that I agree, as a player, Rose should still be allowed in the HOF. There is no evidence that he gambled as a player (though I personally am sure that he probably did), so his playing career should not be subject to punishment.

However, what he did had clear rules and clear punishments, and he agreed to his punishment. Not so with PEDs pre-2005. There were phoney rules and no punishment. The institution allowed it to take place, and the writers and fans condoned it. Not to mention, what Rose did is far worse than any manner of PED use.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

as i said in another thread

i'm betting on maddux, glavin, thomas, and biggio making it and they deserve it, no dobut

but hof voting is as dumb as mvp voting, imo. until pete rose gets in it's all just a fucking joke

ped were ubiquitous in the sport and mlb and the players union were fine with it until congress got involved. not fair to fuck over clemens and company, imo.

they named the DH award after EDGAR MARTINEZ, and it's a travesty that he's not getting voted in. if he had played shitty 1st base for a few years longer, he'd probably be a shoo in. so styupid.

It's certainly not a joke. I agree he should be in, but he broke very clear rules with very clear punishments, and agreed to his banishment. He's not eligible. Until the HOF changes their rules, he'll remain ineligible. Far different than subjectively refusing to vote for players based off of suspicion.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

somebody got all of those MLB records

his name was Pete Rose

mlb is making a farce of itself by ignoring him

i see what you're saying about edgar, though

They're really not making a farce of themselves. He is serving the clearly defined punishment of the rule he chose to repeatedly break. It would be farcical if they reinstated him and wiped their ass with their own rule. A rule, I add, that must be in place.

MLB also doesn't control the HOF. The HOF is a separate body. They happen to have a rule that any player on MLB's Permanently Ineligible List is ineligible for the HOF ballot. They can lift that rule and Rose can be banned from MLB, but still in the HOF.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

jack morris should be in.
pete rose should be in.

No way Jack Morris should be in.

 

[Lemon Harang Pie]

I suspect that someone this year will leave Maddux unchecked because he has more than 10 candidates that he believes are worthy and figures that Maddux will get in without his vote anyway. I don't think I'd do that personally, but it's not such a "stupid" reason.

Maybe but isn't that mostly because voters left off worthy candidates in previous years for stupid reasons?

 

[navamind]

No way Jack Morris should be in.

I love how some Tigers fans campaign for the wrong players. It's ridiculous that Trammell and Whitaker aren't in the HOF. It's even more ridiculous that people would even consider Morris a HOFer.

There's probably at least 50 pitchers just as deserving (if not more) of induction. I don't see anyone campaigning for Kevin Appier (who at least had a very good peak and some HOF caliber years) or Dennis Martinez.

 

[navamind]

I'd love to see someone come up with any kind of reason to vote for Morris over Mussina. You can't even say he was better in the postseason (despite the reputation, Mussina's postseason stats are much better) and Mussina even had a better record. Mussina beats him in almost every single stat, and that's not even adjusting for era. Mussina had a career ERA+ of 123. Morris was higher than that five times. Morris had a career high with 133 in 1979. Mussina had an ERA+ of 133 or higher in six different seasons (unless you want to count his 87.2 innings in '91, but that's a small sample size).

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mussimi01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/morrija02.shtml

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

I love how some Tigers fans campaign for the wrong players. It's ridiculous that Trammell and Whitaker aren't in the HOF. It's even more ridiculous that people would even consider Morris a HOFer.

There's probably at least 50 pitchers just as deserving (if not more) of induction. I don't see anyone campaigning for Kevin Appier (who at least had a very good peak and some HOF caliber years) or Dennis Martinez.

Truer words have never been spoken.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Of the 22 guys with greater than 5% of the vote based on Think Factory's gizmo, I'd rank them:

Shoo-ins:
1. Bonds
2. Maddux
3. Clemens
4. Thomas
5. Bagwell
6. Piazza
7. Biggio
8. Mussina
9. Schilling
10. Glavine

Borderline but in:
11. Raines
12. Trammell
13. Martinez
14. Walker

Borderline but out:
15. Kent
16. Palmiero
17. McGwire
18. Sosa
19. McGriff

Clearly out:
20. Morris
21. Mattingly
22. Smith

 

[Chef99]

Of the 22 guys with greater than 5% of the vote based on Think Factory's gizmo, I'd rank them:

Shoo-ins:
1. Bonds
2. Maddux
3. Clemens
4. Thomas
5. Bagwell
6. Piazza
7. Biggio
8. Mussina
9. Schilling
10. Glavine

Borderline but in:
11. Raines
12. Trammell
13. Martinez
14. Walker

Borderline but out:
15. Kent
16. Palmiero
17. McGwire
18. Sosa
19. McGriff

Clearly out:
20. Morris
21. Mattingly
22. Smith

Nice rankings; I think I actually agree with you on every one of these. :rollseyes:

 

[Lemon Harang Pie]

Of the 22 guys with greater than 5% of the vote based on Think Factory's gizmo, I'd rank them:

Shoo-ins:
1. Bonds
2. Maddux
3. Clemens
4. Thomas
5. Bagwell
6. Piazza
7. Biggio
8. Mussina
9. Schilling
10. Glavine

Borderline but in:
11. Raines
12. Trammell
13. Martinez
14. Walker

Borderline but out:
15. Kent
16. Palmiero
17. McGwire
18. Sosa
19. McGriff

Clearly out:
20. Morris
21. Mattingly
22. Smith

I think the rankings are good overall with the exception of McGwire. I would put him among the shoo-ins, at # 11, and push everyone in the borderline but in category into the borderline but out. I do think they eventually get in but I don't think they should.